Electoral Revision or Political Conspiracy? Is the Election Commission Furthering the BJP’s Agenda?

In India, the Election Commission (EC) has long been regarded as a pillar of democracy—an institution that ensures free, fair, and impartial elections. However, in recent years, its credibility has come under increasing scrutiny. After the Indian National Congress, now the Trinamool Congress (TMC) has openly accused the Election Commission of operating like a "branch office" of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). These allegations have intensified following the EC’s move to initiate a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in states like Bihar, which the TMC claims is a thinly veiled attempt to push through the National Register of Citizens (NRC) agenda and alter voter demographics before the crucial 2026 Bengal Assembly elections.

TMC Rajya Sabha MP Derek O’Brien held a press conference in New Delhi, alleging that the BJP’s internal assessment for the upcoming Bengal elections has projected a poor performance—around 46 to 49 seats. According to O’Brien, the Election Commission’s SIR initiative is a desperate attempt to reverse these projections. The TMC claims it has access to these internal BJP figures, which is why party General Secretary Abhishek Banerjee recently predicted that the BJP would fail to cross 50 seats in Bengal.

The real controversy arises from the nature of the electoral revision. The EC has mandated stricter documentation requirements based on the Citizenship Act, 1955. For those born after July 1, 1987, it is now mandatory to submit not only their own birth certificates but also documentary proof of their parents’ date and place of birth. In some cases, particularly where a parent is a foreign national, even passport and visa copies must be provided. This raises immediate red flags, especially in a country where only around 2.8% of rural citizens possess birth certificates and access to official documentation is deeply uneven.

This isn’t just bureaucratic inconvenience—it’s disenfranchisement in the making. The move threatens to strip voting rights from vast sections of the population, especially poor, marginalized, migrant, and minority communities who are least likely to possess such documentation. TMC leaders have argued that this mirrors the infamous “Ancestor Pass” system implemented in Nazi Germany in 1935 to classify and exclude Jewish citizens. O’Brien warned, “Is this the new version of the Nazi ancestor pass? Where do we go from here?”

West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has also expressed concerns, arguing that the ultimate target of these measures is Bengal, which heads to the polls next year. If the pilot project in Bihar is successful, it could easily be replicated in West Bengal and other opposition-ruled states. Banerjee has long flagged issues of duplicate voter entries and voter list manipulation, and now the TMC sees this revision process as the BJP’s backdoor attempt to carry out an NRC-like exercise under the guise of electoral reform.

The TMC’s concerns are not unfounded. In the 11 by-elections held in West Bengal over the past year, the TMC won 7 seats with comfortable margins, often snatching them from the BJP. These results indicate that the BJP’s ground support in Bengal is eroding, prompting them—according to the TMC—to rely on institutional mechanisms to regain control. “We are not a party that flies before elections,” said O’Brien, referring to the TMC’s consistent grassroots strength.

This also feeds into a broader narrative that the Election Commission, once a beacon of neutrality, is now increasingly seen as partisan. From its handling of EVM-related concerns to its silence on hate speech during election campaigns, the EC has repeatedly been accused of selectively applying rules and avoiding action against ruling party leaders. The refusal to grant appointments to TMC delegations or clarify the voter duplication issue—despite earlier assurances—only adds to the perception of bias.

What makes this particularly dangerous is the scale of its potential impact. If implemented widely, this voter documentation drive could eliminate the names of millions of genuine citizens from electoral rolls. In India, where urban slums, rural hamlets, and migrant labor colonies lack consistent access to documentation, requiring a birth certificate for both the voter and their parents effectively excludes the most vulnerable. It’s not just administrative overreach—it’s democratic exclusion.

Sagarika Ghose, TMC’s deputy leader in the Rajya Sabha, pointedly said, “Do we all keep the birth certificates of our parents? What about the poor and migrant labourers? How will they get this? This is a conspiracy. This is an attempt to push forward the BJP’s agenda. The BJP and the ECI will take away the voting rights of the citizens of India.” According to her, this isn’t just about Bihar or Bengal—it’s about the future of inclusive voting in India.

The implications of such moves are severe and extend beyond party lines. This is not merely a political dispute between the BJP and the TMC. It’s about the integrity of India’s democratic framework. When an institution as central as the Election Commission appears to tilt towards a political party, it undermines public trust and damages the democratic fabric. The EC, in its silence or complicity, risks becoming a tool in a broader agenda aimed at engineering electoral outcomes by shaping the voter base itself.

TMC has declared that it will take this fight to Parliament and the streets. “This government suffers from Parliament phobia. We cannot wait for the Parliament session. There is still good coordination among the INDIA bloc parties,” O’Brien stated. The INDIA alliance, comprising various opposition parties, is expected to make this issue a national priority in the coming monsoon session.

In the final analysis, what we are witnessing is a fundamental shift in how electoral power is contested in India. The fight is no longer only about votes—it’s about who gets to vote at all. If institutions like the Election Commission allow themselves to become part of political strategies, the consequences for democracy are dire. This is not just a partisan concern—it is a national alarm bell.

The battle over the Special Intensive Revision is not just about Bengal or Bihar. It is a test case for the future of voter rights in India. The outcome will determine whether India remains a democracy where every citizen, regardless of their paperwork, has a voice—or becomes a regime where bureaucracy decides who counts and who does not.