The current controversy over the voter rolls revision - called Special Intensive Revision (SIR) - and the protests in India raises precisely the question of how healthy our democracy is. The dispute is not merely an administrative matter. Rather, it concerns the relationship between citizenship, political representation, institutional independence, and the state’s accountability to citizens. At stake is the very basis of democracy itself when the credibility of the electoral process and citizens’ rights to question are met with the iron hands of the powerful state.

Beyond the Ballot Box

Electoral democracy requires that the procedures governing democratic electoral participation are transparent and open to public scrutiny. If citizens cannot protect their right to vote, the legitimacy of the electoral process itself becomes a matter of concern.

Political economist Sabyasachi Das, in his research paper Electoral Irregularities in the World’s Largest Democracy, examined statistical trends in India’s 2019 general election. The paper identified unusual patterns in close electoral contests won by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), including findings of possible electoral manipulation and potential discrimination against Muslim voters. It also discussed discrepancies between two datasets published by the Election Commission of India (ECI), in which the ECI’s initially published figures for EVM votes polled and its subsequent figures for EVM votes counted did not match across 373 constituencies.

These findings deserve serious consideration. The same principle applies to the controversy surrounding the SIR. Reports have put the number of names removed from voter lists at more than 130 million. The Election Commission has maintained that the deletions include deceased voters, people who have relocated, and individuals who could not be traced. Critics, however, have raised concerns about the scale of the exercise, its implementation, and partisan bias. 

The distinction between removing ineligible entries and excluding eligible citizens is fundamental. Cleaning electoral rolls is a legitimate administrative objective; disenfranchisement is not. The relevant question is whether safeguards are sufficient to ensure that every eligible citizen can exercise their right to vote, regardless of social position, religion, location, or political preference. Such concerns cannot be answered through official assurances alone. They require accessible records, clear procedures for appeal, independent verification, and public accountability.

When the right to vote depends on administrative processes that citizens cannot adequately understand or challenge, the promise of universal adult suffrage risks becoming less humane and secure, becoming a mere technical procedure. Electoral integrity therefore requires not only accuracy, but also public confidence in the institutions responsible for maintaining it. 

The State and the Police

The state's response to these demonstrations has raised a further question: how should a democratic state respond when citizens challenge the credibility of its institutions?

Large-scale detentions have been reported during demonstrations in Delhi, alongside restrictions affecting parts of the capital, public transport, and communications. The Committee to Protect Journalists reported that more than three dozen journalists were detained while covering demonstrations. Some journalists have reported physical assault and the seizure of phones by the police.  Students were physically harassed and beaten when found recording police violence. Activists also alleged that individuals were isolated and assaulted at a makeshift detention centre. These accounts raise concerns also about detainees’ access to basic rights, the shrinking public spaces for expressing grievances, and the state's lack of public accountability.

Public order is a legitimate responsibility of the state, but excessive restrictions on the right to assemble and protest are undemocratic. The existence of a public-order rationale does not eliminate the need for proportionality, due process, and respect for fundamental rights. In this context, the Supreme Court (SC) has recently observed that the right to peaceful protest is a constitutional guarantee under Article 19 and cannot be denied merely because an agitation is underway, while stressing that police excess cannot be justified by public disorder.

The right to protest is particularly important when the institution being challenged is responsible for protecting the electoral process. Citizens who question discrepancies in electoral procedures are not, by that fact alone, enemies of democracy. Here the state has been attempting to shift the focus away from public accountability towards the character of the protesters by delegitimizing the very idea of protest. It risks making dissent itself appear illegitimate before the underlying claims have been examined.

Louis Althusser’s distinction between Repressive State Apparatuses (RSA) and Ideological State Apparatuses (ISA) offers a useful framework. In his account, RSA, including the police, courts, and prisons, operates principally through coercion, while ISA, such as education, religion, media, and political discourse, helps reproduce the beliefs and assumptions that sustain existing social arrangements. In the present case of the state's suppression of citizens' voices, both RSA and ISA operate in tandem.

The policing of a demonstration is an exercise of state power, while the state’s attempt to delegitimize protest and dissent and to build public narratives against protesters is a systematic threat to the founding principles of democracy. When protesters are portrayed as disruptive to public order, anti-national, and unworthy of being heard, attention moves away from their substantive demands. If criticisms of public institutions are interpreted as hostility towards the nation, democratic accountability becomes the victim. The nation and its elected government are not identical, and the state’s institutions are not beyond criticism. Indeed, the ability to question them should be an essential component of democratic citizenship.

Not on Elections Alone

The soul of democracy is the conditions that make political participation meaningful.  Suffrage, independent institutions, freedom of expression, the right to peaceful assembly, a free press, and dissent are its important organs. Elections are indispensable, but they alone cannot guarantee a healthy democracy. 

The Election Commission occupies a particularly important position in this arrangement. Public confidence in its impartiality cannot rest solely on the institution’s own assurances; it must be sustained through transparent procedures, accessible information, and a willingness to submit decisions to public scrutiny. 

Likewise, the state’s response to protest must be assessed not merely by whether it restores order, but also by whether it respects citizens' rights. The central question before India is therefore not simply who wins elections, but whether the conditions that sustain meaningful electoral democracy remain secure.

The spirit of democracy cannot be sustained merely because elections are held regularly. Restoring public faith in the institutions and systems that sustain elections is of paramount importance. The true measure of democracy is not whether power can be exercised, but whether it can be challenged peacefully, and whether those who exercise it are prepared to answer in true democratic spirit the questions raised. 

When the integrity of voter registration is contested, when the exercise of state power against protesters and journalists raises serious concerns, and when demands for accountability risk being displaced by disputes over the motives of those demanding them, the power of democracy must move beyond the ballot box to safeguard itself.

(Rasni Bai is a Research Scholar and L T Om Prakash is an Associate Professor with the Department of Sociology, CHRIST (Deemed to be University), Bangalore. The views expressed are personal. They can be contacted at om.prakash@christuniversity.in, rasni.bai@res.christuniversity.in )