Rahul Gandhi Questions Government on Poll-Body Reforms, Flags Threat to Democratic Fairness

A heated discussion on electoral reforms unfolded in the Lok Sabha as Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi sharply criticised the government over recent changes affecting the functioning and appointment process of the Election Commission of India (ECI). Opening the debate, Gandhi questioned why the Chief Justice of India was removed from the panel responsible for selecting the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners, arguing that the modification weakens institutional neutrality.

Gandhi said the earlier system, which included the Chief Justice, offered balance and ensured that appointments were not driven solely by the ruling party. The new structure — composed of the Prime Minister, a Union Minister and the Leader of the Opposition — leaves the Opposition outnumbered two to one, raising concerns over fairness. According to him, such a framework allows the government disproportionate influence over appointments to a body that oversees the democratic process.

He also criticised another legislation passed recently that grants immunity to election commissioners from legal proceedings for actions taken in their official roles. This protection, he argued, removes an essential layer of accountability, leaving citizens with no avenue for redress if biased or improper decisions are made. Gandhi said these two measures, taken together, dilute transparency and compromise voter trust.

The debate was initiated after Opposition members demanded a detailed discussion on the ongoing nationwide revision of electoral rolls. They alleged that the process has led to inconsistencies and the removal of genuine voters’ names, and called for parliamentary scrutiny to ensure that the exercise remains credible. The government agreed to hold an extended discussion on electoral reforms, allotting significant time for members across parties to raise their concerns.

Throughout his address, Gandhi emphasised that an independent Election Commission is fundamental to India’s democratic framework. He warned that any attempt to centralise control over the institution could have long-term consequences for free and fair elections. The Opposition insisted that reforms must strengthen — not weaken — democratic safeguards.

Responding to the criticisms, ruling-party members maintained that the Election Commission remains autonomous and that the revised appointment mechanism follows established legislative procedures. They argued that the new provisions do not compromise the Commission’s independence and that the revision of electoral rolls is being conducted systematically and transparently.

The debate, which is expected to continue, has drawn wide attention both inside and outside Parliament. With the Opposition pushing for stronger checks and balances and the government defending its legislative changes, the issue has once again placed the spotlight on the robustness of India’s electoral institutions and the importance of preserving their impartiality.

A heated discussion on electoral reforms unfolded in the Lok Sabha as Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi sharply criticised the government over recent changes affecting the functioning and appointment process of the Election Commission of India (ECI). Opening the debate, Gandhi questioned why the Chief Justice of India was removed from the panel responsible for selecting the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners, arguing that the modification weakens institutional neutrality.

Gandhi said the earlier system, which included the Chief Justice, offered balance and ensured that appointments were not driven solely by the ruling party. The new structure — composed of the Prime Minister, a Union Minister and the Leader of the Opposition — leaves the Opposition outnumbered two to one, raising concerns over fairness. According to him, such a framework allows the government disproportionate influence over appointments to a body that oversees the democratic process.

He also criticised another legislation passed recently that grants immunity to election commissioners from legal proceedings for actions taken in their official roles. This protection, he argued, removes an essential layer of accountability, leaving citizens with no avenue for redress if biased or improper decisions are made. Gandhi said these two measures, taken together, dilute transparency and compromise voter trust.

The debate was initiated after Opposition members demanded a detailed discussion on the ongoing nationwide revision of electoral rolls. They alleged that the process has led to inconsistencies and the removal of genuine voters’ names, and called for parliamentary scrutiny to ensure that the exercise remains credible. The government agreed to hold an extended discussion on electoral reforms, allotting significant time for members across parties to raise their concerns.

Throughout his address, Gandhi emphasised that an independent Election Commission is fundamental to India’s democratic framework. He warned that any attempt to centralise control over the institution could have long-term consequences for free and fair elections. The Opposition insisted that reforms must strengthen — not weaken — democratic safeguards.

Responding to the criticisms, ruling-party members maintained that the Election Commission remains autonomous and that the revised appointment mechanism follows established legislative procedures. They argued that the new provisions do not compromise the Commission’s independence and that the revision of electoral rolls is being conducted systematically and transparently.

The debate, which is expected to continue, has drawn wide attention both inside and outside Parliament. With the Opposition pushing for stronger checks and balances and the government defending its legislative changes, the issue has once again placed the spotlight on the robustness of India’s electoral institutions and the importance of preserving their impartiality.