Nariman challenges election appointments and the court’s response to voter exclusions

A government’s authority begins with citizens being able to choose it. When eligible voters disappear from electoral rolls, the damage reaches beyond an individual polling booth. It affects the basis on which political power is exercised. Former Supreme Court judge Rohinton Fali Nariman has now challenged the institutions responsible for protecting that choice, including the court on which he once served.

Speaking at Rajkumar College in Rajkot on the Constitution and the common citizen, Nariman criticised the Election Commission’s functioning and urged an early decision on the law governing election appointments. Live Law reported his remarks on 4 October. His intervention brings together three concerns that deserve sustained public examination: voter exclusion, collective decision making and executive influence over constitutional institutions.

Nariman cited 90 lakh voters excluded in West Bengal, about 22 lakh appeals and approximately one lakh appeals decided, with 93 per cent favouring voters. These are figures he presented in his address. They should be read as his account, rather than as independently audited findings by this publication. He questioned whether the Supreme Court had responded adequately to the scale of exclusion.

Those numbers, if established on comparable official records, require explanation. The appropriate questions concern eligibility, reasons for deletion, notice, access to appeal and restoration before polling. A successful appeal can correct a wrongful exclusion. An unresolved appeal may leave a citizen unable to vote when it matters. Administrative remedies must therefore be assessed against electoral deadlines as well as their formal availability.

Nariman’s criticism also concerned the appointment process. The 2023 legislation places the Prime Minister, the Lok Sabha’s Leader of Opposition and a Cabinet minister nominated by the Prime Minister on the selection committee. Two members consequently come from the executive. The presence of an opposition representative allows disagreement, but does not remove the government’s numerical advantage in selecting the people who supervise elections.

That structure followed the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Anoop Baranwal. Pending parliamentary legislation, the court prescribed a committee including the Prime Minister, opposition leader and Chief Justice of India. Parliament subsequently substituted a nominated Cabinet minister for the Chief Justice. The constitutional challenge concerns whether the enacted arrangement adequately safeguards independence. Parliament’s authority to legislate and the institution’s need for impartiality both require examination.

The Supreme Court recently delivered a split decision on whether the challenge should go to a Constitution Bench. Nariman expressed disappointment that the dispute remained unresolved while appointments continued. His objection concerns the practical consequences of delay. An appointment mechanism operates throughout litigation, and its effects cannot always be undone merely by delivering a judgment at a later date.

A separate controversy concerns how the Commission reaches decisions after appointments are made. The Indian Express reported repeated written objections by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi over steps associated with the Special Intensive Revision. Its investigation described at least 14 objections across ten months. The central allegation is that important decisions proceeded without the participation or approval expected within a collective body.

The Commission has contested that interpretation. Its response described differing observations as part of normal institutional deliberation. Government ministers and the BJP have denied allegations of manipulation. Those responses belong in any fair account. Internal questions do not automatically establish unlawful conduct. The decisive evidence lies in the complete records of deliberation, approval and implementation, rather than selected descriptions from either side.

Section 18 of the 2023 Act provides for unanimity wherever possible and a majority decision when commissioners differ. The distinction matters. A disagreement need not prevent action if a lawful majority approves it. Equally, calling something an institutional decision does not settle whether the prescribed process occurred. The relevant files should establish who considered each disputed measure and how the decision was reached.

Election administration necessarily involves correcting records. Deaths, duplicate entries and changes of residence can require revisions. The public interest also demands safeguards for eligible people whose documents contain inconsistencies or whose circumstances make compliance difficult. A credible system must explain its errors and correct them promptly. The legitimacy of verification depends partly on how it treats the citizen most likely to struggle with it.

For a daily wage worker, pursuing an appeal can mean lost earnings, travel expenses and repeated visits to an office. A person with limited literacy may need assistance to understand a notice. These practical burdens deserve attention when assessing whether a remedy is accessible. A procedure available on paper may still be difficult to use within the time an election allows.

Nariman’s intervention should not be mistaken for a judicial ruling. He is a retired judge speaking publicly, and his conclusions remain open to scrutiny. His experience gives his concerns significance without exempting them from verification. The same standard should apply to officials defending the exercise. Public confidence improves when all claims are tested against records that citizens can understand and examine.

The court’s responsibility is to address the legal questions with clear reasons and appropriate urgency. It must distinguish errors affecting particular voters from defects in the wider process. It must also assess whether available relief can protect participation before an election concludes. A judgment’s practical value depends on the remedy it provides as well as the principles it states.

For the government and Commission, the immediate opportunity is greater disclosure. Explain the disputed decisions, publish usable information about exclusions and appeals, and account for corrective action. Such steps would give citizens a basis for judging competing allegations. The public should be able to ask these questions without its concern being dismissed as hostility to the institutions themselves.

Nariman has placed a difficult question before the country. Will its institutions protect every eligible voter’s participation through evidence, timely decisions and effective remedies?