Scrap SIR, dissoudre la CE: Comment Parakala Prabhakar a mis le feu aux poudres sur le corps électoral

The Election Commission of India faces mounting pressure from opposition parties, legal petitions, and public protests regarding the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. The INDIA bloc is planning a new wave of demonstrations in early November, following a series of large-scale marches in central Delhi during the second week of October. These protests target Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, whom opposition leaders allege exercised unilateral authority during the revision process. The movement seeks his resignation and the immediate restoration of millions of voters whose names were removed from the electoral rolls. The current escalation follows a period of intense activity in October. On October 9, opposition leaders met President Droupadi Murmu to demand Kumar’s resignation and the repeal of the 2023 law granting lifelong immunity to the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners. During this meeting, they requested the immediate suspension of the Special Intensive Revision and the restoration of 13.3 crore voters who were allegedly deleted from the rolls. President Murmu responded by seeking evidence of vote manipulation from the opposition group. Three days later, on October 12, Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi led a massive march to the Supreme Court to file a petition. Accompanied by Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge and other leaders, Gandhi argued that Kumar arbitrarily used the collective powers of the Election Commission during the revision. The petition sought judicial review of specific decisions to protect the constitutional guarantee of universal adult suffrage, though the petitioners explicitly stated they did not intend to challenge the overall validity of the revision process itself. CPI(M) General Secretary M.A. Baby indicated that the opposition is considering various strategies for the next phase of protests. Options include repeating the large mobilization in Delhi or holding a mock parliament session to enact the impeachment of Kumar. Baby described the plan for a mock trial involving eminent jurists and former Supreme Court judges, noting that a defense for Kumar would be presented to highlight perceived guilt. A senior Congress leader confirmed that top leadership is finalizing plans, emphasizing that both Gandhi and Congress General Secretary K.C. Venugopal have vowed to continue protests until Kumar resigns. The INDIA bloc intends to form a coordination committee comprising members from various constituent parties to oversee these initiatives. Preparations are underway for a rally at Ramlila Ground on November 1, which will include student bodies and civil society organizations. Parallel to the political protests, economist Parakala Prabhakar has intensified his criticism of the revision process. Prabhakar, who joined the movement recently, is scheduled to participate in an anti-revision protest in Delhi on October 23 alongside Abhijeet Dipke, founder of the Cockroach Janta Party, and actor Prakash Raj. Prabhakar characterizes the revision as a deep structural project aimed at reshaping India’s political society rather than simply cleaning up electoral data. In posts on social media and articles in publications such as the Deccan Herald, he has described the exercise as an effort to customize the electorate to fit a majoritarian agenda. On August 31, shortly after draft rolls for Telangana were published, Prabhakar noted high levels of deletions in Hyderabad, suggesting a pattern of escalating measures after initial tests in Bihar and Bengal. His rhetoric has grown more severe since an investigative report published on September 23 questioned whether Election Commissioners were fully aware of critical decisions made during the rollout. Historical precedents within the electoral system offer context for the current disputes. When India prepared its first electoral roll, approximately 28 lakh women were initially omitted because they were identified through their relationship to men rather than registered independently. Sukumar Sen, the first Chief Election Commissioner, worked to correct this, ensuring that by the 1957 elections, about 85 percent of those affected were registered under their own names. This historical correction highlights the importance of individual registration rights. Currently, the revision process has resulted in significant deletions across states. In Bihar, around 65 lakh names were missing from the draft roll published in August 2025. The Commission attributed these removals to deaths, migration, and duplicate entries. The Supreme Court subsequently directed the Commission to publish the list of excluded voters along with the specific reasons for each exclusion. In West Bengal, the process revealed administrative bottlenecks. More than 27 lakh names were deleted during adjudication, leading to approximately 22 lakh appeals. Tribunal judges raised technical concerns regarding the appeals portal, citing difficulties in issuing notices, conducting hearings, and restoring names. These issues illustrate the challenge of balancing accuracy with timely remediation. In Karnataka, a separate issue emerged in Aland, where 6,018 online applications sought the deletion of names via Form 7. The Commission rejected 5,994 applications as incorrect and accepted only 24 after verification. Following an inquiry, a First Information Report was registered. This incident underscores the need for verifiable records of applicants, supporting evidence, and final decisions for every deletion request to prevent misuse of identity documents. Transparency in polling data remains a point of contention. During the 2024 Maharashtra Assembly election, reported turnout increased from 58.22 percent at 5 p.m. to 66.05 percent in the final tally. The Commission explained that the earlier figure was provisional and that data continued to update as polling parties returned and records were scrutinized. While differences between provisional and final figures do not automatically indicate irregularities, substantial changes require clear explanations. Additionally, in December 2024, the government amended Rule 93 of the Conduct of Elections Rules following a High Court order to release election records related to the Haryana Assembly election. Critics argue that this amendment limits public access to electronic records, including CCTV footage and webcasting materials, raising questions about the balance between privacy and scrutiny. Institutional independence remains a central theme, with references to the 2023 Supreme Court case Anoop Baranwal versus Union of India, which addressed the composition of selection committees for Election Commissioners.