Former Election Commissioner Ashok Lavasa delivered a sharp critique of India's democratic institutions Thursday, pointing to the ongoing special intensive revision of electoral rolls as evidence that statutory bodies are increasingly operating under a "might is right" philosophy.

Key facts

  • 13 crore names deleted from electoral rolls during SIR process
  • 33% of eligible voters already abstain from voting
  • Judiciary has validated the SIR procedure

A troubling shift in institutional behavior

Speaking at the Prof. Jagdeep Singh Chhokar Memorial Lecture in New Delhi, Lavasa observed that constitutional bodies and governments have suddenly begun acting as though raw power justifies their actions. "Institutions that have the mandate of law invested in them... think whatever they do is right," he noted, describing this mindset as outdated and dangerous.

The gap between legal and fair

While authorities defend the special intensive revision as technically legal, Lavasa drew a crucial distinction. "It is definitely not fair," he asserted. The former commissioner emphasized that true justice involves protecting both the letter and the spirit of the law—something he believes is missing from the current process.

"How do you explain the deletion of 13 crore names [from electoral rolls]?"

That staggering number—130 million names removed—hung in the air as Lavasa questioned whether the revision was creating "mass anxiety" among citizens already disengaged from the democratic process.

Broader concerns about democracy

Lavasa connected the electoral roll controversy to wider patterns in Indian politics. He noted that both the nature of politics and the profile of politicians have undergone "tremendous change" since independence. Critical issues affecting public life, he argued, often go unaddressed while political activity becomes increasingly driven by power dynamics rather than public concerns.

The former commissioner specifically mentioned how political parties have ignored the Central Information Commission's ruling that they fall under the Right to Information Act—and how few parties opposed the controversial electoral bonds scheme.