There are moments in the life of a democracy when an individual office becomes larger than the individual occupying it. The controversy surrounding Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar has reached such a moment. The demand for his resignation should not be dismissed merely as an opposition slogan or a partisan political strategy. At its deepest level, it raises a philosophical question about institutional legitimacy, public confidence and the moral authority of the Indian electoral system. When the credibility of the institution responsible for conducting elections becomes the subject of intense political dispute, the government must think beyond the immediate defence of one office holder. It must ask a more fundamental question: what is more important, protecting an individual or protecting the confidence of the people in the institution?
The Election Commission of India occupies a unique place in the constitutional architecture of the Republic. It is not an ordinary government department, nor is it an extension of the ruling party. Its authority derives from the Constitution, but its legitimacy ultimately depends upon public trust. A government can survive criticism. A political party can survive electoral defeat. A minister can survive controversy. But an Election Commission cannot afford to lose the confidence of the people whose votes give democratic governments their legitimacy. Once citizens begin to believe that the referee is no longer neutral, the credibility of the entire electoral game becomes questionable.
The controversy surrounding electoral roll revision has therefore acquired significance far beyond administrative procedure. The Election Commission has defended the exercise as necessary for ensuring accurate electoral rolls and removing ineligible entries, while Opposition parties have raised serious concerns about the possible exclusion of legitimate voters. The dispute has consequently moved from the technical domain of electoral administration into the philosophical territory of democratic citizenship. A voter is not merely a name in a database. A voter is a citizen exercising sovereign constitutional power. Removing that citizen from the electoral roll is therefore not simply a bureaucratic correction. It touches the most fundamental relationship between the individual and the Republic.
This is why Gyanesh Kumar should consider resignation in the larger interest of the institution. Resignation should not automatically be interpreted as an admission of wrongdoing. In constitutional life, resignation can also represent accountability, institutional humility and recognition that public confidence matters as much as administrative authority. There are circumstances in which an office holder may be legally entitled to continue but morally better positioned to step aside. The distinction between legality and legitimacy is essential to understanding the present moment. Something may be legally defensible and yet politically damaging if citizens increasingly perceive the institution as lacking independence.
The government must therefore understand that defending an individual at any cost can sometimes weaken the institution that the government claims to defend. If the controversy continues indefinitely, every allegation, every protest, every disagreement and every unanswered question will accumulate into a larger narrative of institutional distrust. The government may believe that it is protecting the Election Commission by defending its leadership. But democratic wisdom sometimes requires recognising that the institution can be protected precisely by allowing an individual to leave.
A voluntary resignation by Gyanesh Kumar, followed by the appointment of a widely respected and demonstrably independent successor, could provide an opportunity for institutional renewal. It would send a powerful message that no individual office holder is more important than public confidence in the electoral system. It would also deprive the Opposition of an argument that the government is more interested in protecting an official than protecting the credibility of the institution. In politics, such a decision would require courage because resignation is often wrongly interpreted as weakness. In constitutional democracy, however, the willingness to sacrifice personal position for institutional credibility can be a sign of strength.
The deeper philosophical issue is the meaning of political legitimacy. Democracy is not simply the arithmetic of fifty one percent against forty nine percent. It is a moral compact between citizens and institutions. The majority receives the authority to govern, but the minority retains the right to believe that the process by which the majority obtained power was fair. That belief is indispensable. If an election produces a government but fails to produce confidence in the fairness of the process, democracy may remain formally intact while becoming morally weakened.
India has built an extraordinary electoral tradition over decades. The Election Commission became respected because ordinary citizens came to believe that their vote mattered irrespective of their caste, class, religion, region or political preference. That confidence cannot be measured in rupees or constitutional clauses. It is an intangible democratic asset accumulated over generations. Once damaged, it cannot easily be restored through press conferences or official statements. Institutional credibility is built slowly and destroyed quickly.
The government should therefore resist the temptation to treat every criticism of the Election Commission as an attack on democracy itself. Criticism of a constitutional institution is not necessarily an attack on the Constitution. Indeed, democratic institutions become stronger when they are capable of answering difficult questions. The Election Commission should welcome scrutiny, explain its decisions and make its procedures understandable to ordinary citizens. Transparency is not a concession to the Opposition. It is an obligation to the voter.
At the same time, Opposition parties must also accept their responsibility. Allegations concerning electoral manipulation must be supported by evidence, not merely political rhetoric. The integrity of elections cannot become a permanent battlefield in which every electoral defeat is attributed to institutional conspiracy. Democracy requires both institutional accountability and political responsibility. But precisely because political parties have partisan interests, the Election Commission has an even greater responsibility to appear and remain above partisan suspicion.
The controversy also demonstrates why India needs deeper reforms in the manner in which constitutional institutions are appointed, scrutinised and held accountable. The Election Commission must possess not merely formal independence but visible independence. Its decisions must be capable of surviving scrutiny from political parties, courts, journalists, academics and ordinary citizens. The appointment process, electoral roll revision procedures, access to electoral data, mechanisms for correcting voter exclusions and internal institutional accountability all deserve continuous public examination.
The most dangerous condition for a democracy is not disagreement. It is indifference. A democracy that argues about its institutions is still alive. A democracy in which citizens stop believing that institutions can protect their rights is entering a much more dangerous territory. India should therefore treat the present controversy as an opportunity for democratic introspection rather than merely another confrontation between the government and the Opposition.
Gyanesh Kumar must understand that constitutional office is ultimately a public trust. The office does not belong to the office holder. It belongs to the Republic. If his continuation is increasingly becoming an obstacle to restoring confidence in the Election Commission, then stepping down could become an act of institutional responsibility. His resignation would not establish the truth or falsity of every allegation made against him. Nor should it be presented as a judicial finding of wrongdoing. It would simply acknowledge a fundamental democratic principle: sometimes an institution must be protected from the consequences of an individual’s continued presence at its centre.
The government, too, must rise above the instinct of political defence. It should not fear resignation. It should fear the gradual erosion of public confidence. Governments come and go. Political majorities change. Leaders disappear from history. Constitutional institutions must remain. The BJP may be politically powerful today, but no political party can claim permanent ownership of the Republic. The Election Commission belongs equally to the government, the Opposition and, above all, the citizen.
India does not need an Election Commission that merely conducts elections. India needs an Election Commission that citizens instinctively trust. It needs a referee whose decisions may be criticised but whose basic neutrality is rarely questioned. It needs electoral administration that treats every voter not as a number but as a sovereign participant in the Republic.
If Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation can help restore that confidence, then resignation should not be understood as defeat. It should be understood as responsibility. The highest test of public office is not how long a person can remain in power, but whether that person knows when the interests of the institution have become more important than personal continuation.
The government can win parliamentary battles, defeat political motions and survive street protests. But there is one battle it cannot afford to lose: the battle for the confidence of India’s citizens in the institutions of their democracy. No government, no political party and no constitutional office holder is greater than that confidence.
Gyanesh Kumar must therefore seriously consider stepping aside, not because an individual is greater than the Constitution, but precisely because no individual is greater than the credibility of the Republic.
(Views are personal)
Dr. Vikram Kesari Jena,
Director, CARD, Center for Adivasi Research & Development, EDLC Fellow USA, National Awardee(IHC), Policy Thinker & Strategist