‘AN UMPIRE MUST BE TRUSTED’: EX-EC CHIEF ASHOK LAVASA QUESTIONS BENGAL’S VOTER-ROLL REVISION, WARNS AGAINST EXCLUSION BY SUSPICION

October 14, 2026

Former Election Commissioner Ashok Lavasa has called on the Election Commission of India to restore its reputation as an impartial guardian of electoral democracy, expressing concern that the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal has undermined public confidence in the institution. Speaking at a citizens’ convention in central Kolkata on Tuesday, Lavasa argued that unexplained discrepancies in voter records could not, by themselves, justify disqualification and warned that the Election Commission must regain the trust it had built over decades.

Lavasa said the Election Commission had once been widely regarded as a fair and independent institution, respected in India and abroad for its ability to conduct elections in the world’s largest democracy. He described the scale of the protests surrounding the current revision exercise as deeply unfortunate, arguing that doubts about the impartiality of the electoral authority could damage confidence in the democratic process itself.

“In an electoral democracy, you need a fair umpire. If people feel the umpire is not fair, aspersions are cast on the winning team,” Lavasa said, expressing hope that the poll panel would restore its credibility and public standing.

He acknowledged that the Commission was facing serious objections, some of which, in his assessment, raised questions of legality. He said the Supreme Court’s eventual view would be important, but stressed that the immediate challenge was the loss of public trust reflected in the protests.

A CONTRAST WITH THE FOUNDING YEARS

Lavasa recalled the contribution of Sukumar Sen, independent India’s first Chief Election Commissioner, whom he described as an example of the impartiality expected from the institution. Sen served from March 1950 to December 1958 and oversaw the country’s first two general elections, held in 1951–52 and 1957.

During the early years of electoral democracy, Sen devoted approximately a year and a half to travelling across districts and examining electoral rolls to ensure that eligible citizens were included. This effort was undertaken when a large proportion of the population was illiterate and the technology available to election administrators was far more limited than it is today.

Lavasa contrasted that inclusive approach with what he saw as a shift towards prioritising the removal of people suspected of being ineligible. He argued that the contemporary revision exercise appeared to place greater emphasis on exclusion than on ensuring that every eligible citizen could participate in elections.

The former commissioner’s central concern was that suspicion or inconsistency in a voter’s records should not automatically translate into the loss of electoral eligibility.

SIXTY LAKH VOTERS UNDER ADJUDICATION

Lavasa questioned the lack of clarity surrounding the approximately 60 lakh electors in Bengal who had been marked for adjudication during the SIR exercise. He said the public had not been adequately informed about what constituted a “logical discrepancy”, how such discrepancies were identified or what consequences they could have for individual voters.

“Discrepancy can never mean disqualification. Not the least by the Election Commission,” he said, arguing that the standards governing the process needed to be transparent and understandable to the people affected by it.

He also drew attention to the volume of appeals arising from the revision. Of approximately 38 lakh appeals before appellate tribunals, more than 16 lakh challenged the inclusion of names on electoral rolls. Lavasa described the number of appeals against inclusions as unprecedented in India’s electoral history and said it raised serious questions about the intentions and functioning of the Commission.

His observations placed the focus on the need for clear criteria, meaningful explanations and safeguards for people whose electoral status is being reviewed. The broader issue, he suggested, was whether a revision intended to improve the accuracy of electoral rolls could be conducted without creating uncertainty about the voting rights of eligible citizens.

CITIZENS’ CONVENTION RAISES WIDER CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS

Actor and activist Prakash Raj, who also addressed the convention virtually, described the SIR exercise as a dangerous threat to democracy. Former bureaucrat Jawhar Sircar and senior advocate and CPI(M) leader Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya served as co-conveners of the meeting, which was held in an open space on AJC Bose Road, opposite Pratt Memorial School.

Bhattacharyya accused the authorities of using voter deletions to undermine democratic participation, particularly among Muslims, Dalits, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other marginalised communities. He portrayed the exercise as an expression of political fear and authoritarianism, arguing that the principle of equal voting rights was being threatened.

Sircar raised concerns about the use of artificial intelligence-powered software in processes involving the addition and deletion of names. He questioned whether decisions affecting citizens’ voting rights could be entrusted to automated systems without sufficient transparency, accountability and human oversight.

Referring to the legal framework governing the Election Commission, Sircar reminded the chief election commissioner that the institution operated under the law and could not act beyond the authority conferred upon it. His comments reflected the convention’s broader demand that electoral administration remain accountable to statutory requirements and constitutional principles.

Former bureaucrat and author Anita Agnihotri also criticised what she described as a departure from the Election Commission’s earlier emphasis on inclusion. She recalled that district administrators had traditionally been instructed to facilitate voting rights for as many eligible marginalised people as possible, arguing that the current approach appeared to reverse that priority.

Academic and theatre expert Samik Bandyopadhyay drew historical parallels with the emergence of fascism in Italy more than a century ago, while former Jadavpur University vice-chancellor Ashok Nath Basu emphasised that the Constitution guarantees citizens the right to protest peacefully against the government.

Basu argued that defending the Constitution had become a responsibility for citizens themselves, adding that democratic rights required active public protection.

VENUE CHANGES ADD TO THE CONTROVERSY

The convention itself had faced difficulties securing a venue. It was initially planned at Kalamandir on Theatre Road, but permission was revoked at the last minute, reportedly because of a technical glitch. Permission for a news conference at the Academy of Fine Arts was also withdrawn, with the authorities citing anti-government activities.

The organisers ultimately held the meeting in an open space on AJC Bose Road. The venue changes added to the concerns expressed by participants about the space available for public debate and peaceful protest.

The convention brought together former election officials, public policy commentators, lawyers, political leaders, cultural figures and academics around a common concern: whether the SIR exercise is being conducted transparently and in a manner that protects the voting rights of eligible citizens.

Lavasa’s central message was that electoral accuracy cannot be separated from public confidence. A voter-roll revision must have clear rules, explainable decisions and safeguards against unjustified exclusion. The Election Commission’s authority, he argued, ultimately rests not only on its legal powers but also on the confidence citizens place in its impartiality.

As the dispute over Bengal’s electoral rolls continues and the Supreme Court examines related questions, the demand for a credible and transparent process remains central. For Lavasa and the other participants at the convention, the test is whether the Commission can demonstrate that its revision exercise protects the integrity of elections without compromising the fundamental principle that every eligible citizen must have a meaningful opportunity to vote.