letters to the editor

1. At a Glance

• The source is a set of "Letters to the Editor" from The Hindu (Chennai edition, 28 Sep 2026, p. 12). They are reader opinions, not reporting. The letters are about the Election Commission of India's (ECI) credibility during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls [6].
• The core UPSC topic is ECI independence and accountability, together with the legal basis of electoral-roll revision: Article 324 of the Constitution, the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (RPA 1950) and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 [1][2].
• It connects to the CEC and Other ECs (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, which changed how Election Commissioners are selected [4][5].
• It matters for GS-II (constitutional bodies, electoral reforms) and GS-IV (institutional integrity, dissent within collegial bodies).

2. Why in the News

• The ECI decided to run a special drive to help voters left out of the SIR and to change how it works. One letter writer says this was a response to an investigation by The Indian Express and to criticism from the Opposition [6].
• Two Election Commissioners reportedly dissented over how the roll-revision process was run. Their concerns covered ERONet access, changes to Form 6 and the exclusion of eligible voters [6].
• SIR Phase-II began in 9 States and 3 UTs [2]. The ECI deployed Special Roll Observers in major States [3]. It says the SIR runs in phases with multiple safeguards to protect eligible voters [1].

3. Background & Evolution

• Article 324 gives the ECI superintendence, direction and control of elections. The ECI orders the SIR under Article 324, Section 21 of RPA 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 [2].
• The ECI describes the SIR as within its statutory mandate under RPA 1950 and consistent with its constitutional duty to ensure free and fair elections [1].
• 10 Aug 2023: the CEC and Other ECs Bill was introduced in the Rajya Sabha. Under Article 324, appointment of the CEC and ECs is "subject to a law made by Parliament" [4].
• 2023: the Bill was enacted as the CEC and Other ECs (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 (India Code file a2023-49) [5].
• Historical benchmark: readers hold up the T.N. Seshan era as the model of "fierce independence" [6].
• SIR sequence: first phase, then Phase-II in 9 States + 3 UTs [2], then Special Roll Observers deployed [3], then a special drive for excluded voters [6].

4. Core Static Facts

Item	Fact
Constitutional basis of ECI	Article 324 [1][2]
Statute for roll revision	RPA 1950, Section 21 [2]
Subordinate rules	Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 [2]
SIR Phase-II coverage	9 States + 3 UTs [2]
Oversight mechanism	Special Roll Observers [3]
Appointment law	CEC & Other ECs Act, 2023 [5]
Bill introduced in	Rajya Sabha, 10 Aug 2023 [4]
Appointing authority	President, on the Selection Committee's recommendation [4]
Selection Committee	PM (Chair), Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha, Union Cabinet Minister nominated by PM [4]
Issues raised in reported dissent	ERONet access, Form 6 changes, exclusion of eligible voters [6]

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Legal / Constitutional

• The SIR's legal basis has three layers: the Constitution (Art. 324), the statute (RPA 1950, s.21) and delegated legislation (1960 Rules) [2].
• Parliament's power to legislate on appointments comes from Article 324's "subject to law" clause [4]. The 2023 Act uses that power [5].

Ethical / Governance

• One reader says there is a "widespread perception" that the ECI is vulnerable to political pressure. The reader wants institutions answerable to "the Constitution, their conscience and the collective will of citizens" [6].
• A second reader argues that recording dissent is not enough. Constitutional functionaries should also use the institutional mechanisms available to them [6].

Administrative

• Phased rollout, safeguards and Special Roll Observers are the ECI's answer to the risk of exclusion [1][3].
• The ECI's later special drive for left-out voters suggests gaps in implementation [6].

Social

• Exclusion of eligible voters from the rolls directly limits the franchise [6]. The effect is heaviest on the elderly and on migrant or poorly documented citizens. This is analytical inference, not a sourced fact.

Political / Federal

• The Opposition's criticism and investigative journalism acted as external accountability checks on a constitutional body [6].
• The Selection Committee has a 2:1 executive majority (PM plus a Union minister, against the LoP) [4]. That makes the independence debate structural, not only about individuals.

6. Recent Developments (last 12-18 months)

• SIR Phase-II launched in 9 States and 3 UTs [2].
• Special Roll Observers deployed for the SIR in major States [3].
• ECI said the SIR runs in phases with multiple safeguards for eligible voters [1].
• Sep 2026: two ECs reportedly dissented over the roll-revision process, and the ECI announced a special drive for excluded voters [6].

7. Prelims Hooks

• The SIR is ordered under Article 324 read with Section 21 of RPA 1950 [2].
• Electoral-roll revision is governed by the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, not the Conduct of Election Rules [2].
• Electoral rolls fall under RPA 1950. RPA 1951 deals with the conduct of elections [1][2].
• SIR Phase-II covered 9 States and 3 UTs [2].
• The ECI deployed Special Roll Observers for the SIR [3].
• The CEC & ECs Bill, 2023 was introduced first in the Rajya Sabha (10 Aug 2023) [4].
• The CEC and ECs are appointed by the President on a Selection Committee's recommendation [4].
• The Selection Committee is chaired by the Prime Minister [4].
• The Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha is a member. The LoP in Rajya Sabha is not [4].
• The third member is a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the PM. The CJI is not a member [4].
• Under Article 324, appointments are "subject to any law made by Parliament" [4].
• ERONet came up in the dissent as an electoral-roll management platform [6].

8. What the 2023 Act Changed From the Supreme Court's Model

• The Supreme Court wanted a neutral member on the panel. The Act took that member out.
• In the Anoop Baranwal case (2023), the Supreme Court said the CEC and ECs should be chosen by a panel of the PM, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the Leader of Opposition (LoP) in Lok Sabha. It wanted the ECI to be "independent of Executive control" [4].
• The 2023 Act replaced the CJI with a Cabinet Minister chosen by the PM [4].

• The CJI was the one member who belonged to neither side. Without the CJI, the government side can outvote the Opposition every time.

• If the LoP post is empty, only the government chooses

• The Act says the panel's choice is valid even when a seat on it is vacant [4].
• The PM and the Cabinet Minister posts are never vacant. The LoP post can be, for example when the Lok Sabha is dissolved.

• In that case the ruling party alone picks the people who will run the next election [4].

• The government now has more control over the Commissioners' pay

• The Act moved the pay of the CEC and ECs from the level of a Supreme Court judge to the level of the Cabinet Secretary [4].
• Only Parliament can change a Supreme Court judge's pay, by passing a law. The government can change a Cabinet Secretary's pay by an administrative order [4].

• That gives the government a lever over the Commissioners' pay that Parliament used to hold.

• Only senior bureaucrats can apply

• Only people who are or were Secretary-rank civil servants are eligible [4].
• Judges, academics and other experts are left out, even though the ECI does quasi-judicial work (it decides disputes, much like a court) [4].
• The search committee draws up a shortlist of five names, but the Selection Committee can ignore it completely [4].

9. Why a Dissenting Commissioner Cannot Do Much More Than Dissent

• The two ECs do not have the same job protection as the CEC
• The CEC can be removed only the way a Supreme Court judge is removed, which needs Parliament [4].
• An Election Commissioner can be removed simply on the CEC's recommendation [4].

• An EC who disagrees with the CEC therefore takes a personal risk by speaking up. This is why the reported dissent over ERONet and Form 6 matters [6].

• Parliament cannot fix this by ordinary law

• The Supreme Court noted that the CEC and the ECs are not treated equally. It said correcting this would need a constitutional amendment, because Article 324(5) itself sets out the removal rules [4].

• This changes the GS-IV question

• One reader says an EC should do more than record dissent and should also use institutional mechanisms [6].
• But when the CEC's recommendation alone can remove an EC, recording dissent may be the safest step open to that EC.
• A fair answer should look at both sides: the EC's duty to act, and the risk the EC faces for acting.

10. The Case for the SIR, and Where It Went Wrong

• The strongest argument for the SIR: it is legal and it is needed
• The Supreme Court upheld the SIR. It held that the ECI had not gone beyond its powers under Article 324 and Section 21(3) of RPA 1950 [8].
• The Court linked a clean electoral roll to fair elections. Dead, shifted and duplicate names on the roll can themselves be misused [8].

• This point is correct, and an answer should accept it. The debate is not about whether rolls can be revised. It is about how they are revised.

• The problem is the method: voters had to prove they belonged on the roll

• In Bihar, the draft roll first left out about 65 lakh names. After claims and corrections, this came down to about 47 lakh [8].
• The total number of voters fell from 7.89 crore to 7.42 crore [8].

• The drop from 65 lakh to 47 lakh means about 18 lakh people were first left out and then added back. Many of them had to file claims to get back on the roll.

• The ECI first refused the most common ID document

• The ECI told the Court that neither Aadhaar nor a ration card could be used as proof of eligibility [7].
• The Supreme Court then ordered the ECI to accept Aadhaar as one of 11 documents [7].

• Poor and migrant voters are the most likely to have Aadhaar and nothing else. Refusing it hit them hardest.

• So what is the real lesson?

• The ECI changed course only after the Supreme Court, the press and the Opposition pushed it [6][7].
• The phased rollout and safeguards [1][3] did not stop this. Outside pressure did. That is the core of the "credibility crisis" the letters describe [6].

11. What Parliament and the ECI Should Do Next

• Parliament: give the ECI its own independent secretariat
• The Goswami Committee (1990) and the Law Commission (2015) both recommended an independent secretariat for the ECI [4].

• The 2023 Act did not include this [4]. Without its own staff, the ECI depends on staff lent by the government.

• Parliament: put a neutral member back on the Selection Committee

• The Anoop Baranwal panel (PM, CJI, LoP) is a ready model [4].

• Parliament should also require the LoP seat to be filled, or the largest Opposition party's leader to sit in that seat, before any appointment is made. Otherwise the vacancy gap described above stays open [4].

• Parliament: fix the Commissioners' pay by law, not by government order

• Returning to pay equal to a Supreme Court judge's would take this lever away from the government [4].

• Parliament: give ECs the same protection from removal as the CEC

• This needs an amendment to Article 324(5), as the Supreme Court indicated [4].

• ECI: in future SIRs, accept the documents people actually have from the first day

• Treat Aadhaar and other common IDs as valid from the start, as the Supreme Court later required in Bihar [7].
• Publish the list of deleted names with reasons, as Bihar's district magistrates were made to do on their websites [7]. Voters can then check and appeal in time.

12. Anchors for Answers

• Data: Bihar SIR: about 65 lakh names left off the draft roll, down to about 47 lakh after claims; total voters fell from 7.89 crore to 7.42 crore [8]
• Report/Committee: Goswami Committee (1990) and Law Commission (2015): both recommended an independent secretariat for the ECI [4]
• Law/Case: Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023): Selection Committee of PM, CJI and LoP [4]; Supreme Court upheld the SIR under Article 324 and Section 21(3) of RPA 1950 [8]; Supreme Court ordered Aadhaar to be accepted as one of 11 documents in Bihar's SIR [7]; Article 324(5): removal protection covers the CEC but not the ECs [4]
• Comparison: CEC & ECs Act, 2023 vs the Supreme Court's model: a Cabinet Minister replaces the CJI; pay moves from Supreme Court judge level to Cabinet Secretary level [4]

13. Mains Relevance

• GS-II: Appointment to various constitutional posts, powers, functions and responsibilities of constitutional bodies; Salient features of the Representation of People's Act.
• GS-IV: Probity in governance; accountability and ethical governance; the ethics of dissent within institutions.
• Model questions: 1. "The independence of the Election Commission depends as much on its internal culture as on the appointment process." Critically examine this in light of the CEC and Other ECs Act, 2023. (250 words) 2. Special revision of electoral rolls must balance roll purity against universal adult franchise. Discuss the legal framework and the safeguards needed. (150 words) 3. Is recorded dissent sufficient for a member of a multi-member constitutional body to discharge their accountability? Examine with reference to recent controversies. (GS-IV, 150 words)

14. Related Topics to Study Next

• Article 324–329 (Part XV): the full constitutional scheme on elections.
• RPA 1950 vs RPA 1951: a frequent Prelims confusion over which Act covers rolls and which covers conduct.
• Supreme Court on EC appointments (Anoop Baranwal case, 2023): the judicial precursor to the 2023 Act. Verify the details independently.
• Voter-ID–Aadhaar linkage and the Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021: the roll-purification debate.
• Delimitation: it is currently in the news and also shapes the electoral map.
• Multi-member bodies (UPSC, CAG, CIC): a comparison of appointment and removal safeguards.
• One Nation One Election: it would add to the ECI's institutional load.

15. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• RPA 1950 vs 1951: roll revision falls under 1950 (Section 21), not 1951 [2].
• Selection Committee composition: under the 2023 Act the CJI is not a member. The third member is a Cabinet Minister nominated by the PM [4].
• House of introduction: the 2023 Bill was introduced in the Rajya Sabha, not the Lok Sabha [4].
• The source is opinion, not fact: letters to the editor are reader views. Claims such as "the ECI has become vulnerable to political pressure" are perceptions and should not be quoted as findings [6].
• SIR vs Summary Revision: the SIR is a special, phased, intensive exercise, separate from the routine annual summary revision [1][2].