Action, reaction

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s recent allegations against the Election Commission of India (ECI) have reignited debates over the neutrality and credibility of the country’s top poll body. Accusing the ECI of acting under pressure from the ruling establishment, Rahul contends that its decisions and conduct during elections have increasingly favoured the government. While such charges are not new in India’s political discourse, they strike at the core of democratic functioning — the perception that the electoral referee must remain beyond reproach. The ECI’s credibility has historically been one of India’s democratic strengths, and any erosion of public trust could have far-reaching consequences.

Rahul’s criticism reflects a broader opposition narrative that questions whether the ECI is exercising its constitutional autonomy effectively. Controversies over selective action against political parties, delayed responses to alleged violations, and the timing of certain announcements have all added fuel to the fire. For a democracy as vast and diverse as India, the electoral process must not only be impartial but must also be seen to be impartial. Even the perception of bias can polarise voters and undermine the legitimacy of election results, especially in a politically charged atmosphere where every move is scrutinised.

The ECI, for its part, has consistently defended its independence, pointing to its legal framework and operational safeguards. However, the onus is now on the commission to be more transparent in its decision-making, communicate its rationale more clearly, and ensure uniform enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct. In the current climate, silence or opacity can be misinterpreted as complicity. Whether or not Rahul’s allegations hold ground, they underscore the urgent need for the ECI to reinforce public confidence — not just through fair actions, but through a visible commitment to accountability and openness.