The BJP criticised the INDIA alliance for writing to Chief Justice Surya Kant over the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. BJP MP Sudhanshu Trivedi alleged the Opposition was spreading misinformation, creating fear about elections, and attempting to undermine democratic institutions.
The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has sharply criticised the Opposition alliance INDIA over its recent letter addressed to Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, alleging that the Opposition was attempting to create unnecessary fear about the electoral process and undermine democratic institutions by questioning the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls being undertaken by the Election Commission of India (ECI).
Addressing a press conference, BJP Rajya Sabha MP Sudhanshu Trivedi accused several Opposition parties of spreading misinformation regarding the voter verification exercise and attempting to erode public confidence in the country’s democratic framework. According to the BJP, the Opposition’s concerns were politically motivated and lacked any factual or legal basis.
Trivedi said the BJP strongly objected to the communication sent to the Chief Justice, describing it as an attempt to cast doubts on constitutionally established institutions after repeated electoral setbacks.
Trivedi said,
“The BJP strongly condemns the letter written to the Chief Justice of India, and the failed attempt to undermine democracy, by a few political parties that treat their respective parties as personal caste fiefdoms and face repeated failure due to their constant disregard and disrespect for public sentiment,”
A major focus of the BJP’s criticism was the Opposition’s challenge to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, an exercise conducted by the Election Commission to verify voter lists, remove duplicate or ineligible entries and ensure that electoral rolls remain accurate and updated.
According to Trivedi, the voter roll revision exercise is neither unprecedented nor unlawful. He asserted that similar verification drives have been conducted periodically in the past and have consistently received judicial approval.
Explaining the legal position, he said:
“This entire matter has two facets – a legal one and a political one. From a legal standpoint, the Special Intensive Revision has been upheld as entirely reasonable and lawful by various courts; furthermore, such exercises have been conducted periodically by the Election Commission and the government of India in the past.”
The BJP maintained that updating electoral rolls is an essential part of maintaining the integrity of the democratic process and cannot be portrayed as an attack on democracy merely because it is being undertaken ahead of elections.
Trivedi further argued that even from a constitutional perspective, the Opposition had failed to present any concrete evidence before the judiciary to substantiate its allegations regarding manipulation of the electoral process.
He claimed that the Opposition’s objections had strengthened public suspicion that certain political parties were apprehensive about losing electoral advantages allegedly obtained through questionable voter registrations.
According to Trivedi:
“has raised suspicion in the public mind that their dream of capturing power in the states by relying on dubious voters is now crumbling.”
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Deliberates on Use of ‘INDIA’ Acronym by Political Alliance
He also criticised the language employed in the Opposition’s communication to the Chief Justice, alleging that its tone reflected the same arrogance displayed during the Emergency imposed in 1975.
Seeking to highlight what he described as contradictions within the Opposition itself, Trivedi referred to statements allegedly made by senior Congress leader Shashi Tharoor. According to the BJP MP, Tharoor had acknowledged during a television interview that the Congress had benefited from a similar voter roll revision exercise in Kerala because alleged fake voters had been removed from the electoral rolls.
Trivedi questioned why the Congress was now opposing an exercise that it had earlier found beneficial. He also referred to Karnataka Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar, claiming that the Congress leader had instructed party workers in Karnataka to actively participate in the SIR process.
Trivedi said,
“Meanwhile, your Karnataka leader DK Shivakumar instructs his party workers to engage in the SIR process with promptness and active zeal, yet here you are raising objections against it,”
The BJP’s remarks came in response to a letter jointly addressed to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant by leaders of the INDIA alliance, expressing concerns over what they described as threats to India’s democratic and electoral processes.
The signatories included senior Opposition leaders such as Mallikarjun Kharge, Rahul Gandhi, Akhilesh Yadav, Mamata Banerjee, Tejashwi Yadav, Supriya Sule, Farooq Abdullah, D. Raja, John Brittas, Sanjay Singh, Sarfaraz Ahmad, Dipankar Bhattacharya, Mehbooba Mufti, Vaiko, and several others.
At the outset of the letter, the Opposition leaders explained why they had chosen to directly approach the head of the Indian judiciary.
They stated,
“We would not have, under normal circumstances, written to you. Given the fact that our democracy is in jeopardy, we have chosen this unusual path,”
The leaders clarified that the communication was not intended to interfere with or influence any judicial proceedings already pending before the courts.
The letter said before raising objections regarding the functioning of the Election Commission and the ongoing Special Intensive Revision exercise,
“We all, representing like-minded political parties, firmly opposed to the BJP, believe that the electoral process is being manipulated and outcomes in multiple instances do not reflect the will of the people. There are several reasons for this,”
ALSO READ: PM Modi: “INDI Alliances” Doubts & Dreams on EVMs Shattered by Supreme Court Verdict
The Opposition’s letter went beyond the issue of electoral rolls and expressed broader concerns regarding the functioning of constitutional institutions. The signatories argued that democratic institutions were increasingly coming under pressure and urged the judiciary to play its constitutional role in safeguarding democracy.
The letter stated:
“Judges do not live in ivory towers. You too are aware of what is happening on the ground. The legacy media is largely compromised, but there are many independent platforms who are still speaking truth to power. We respect all institutions as we must. We honour them as we must. But when Institutions themselves become instruments of oppression, carry forward the agenda of the government, then the future of our democracy is fraught with grave consequences.”
The Opposition leaders further cautioned:
“… Democracies tum into anarchies when institutional mechanisms fail completely. Therefore, it is the responsibility of all of us to ensure that people’s faith in institutions must endure. And for that, institutions must play their role.”
They also emphasised that their concerns were not directed against the judiciary itself but reflected their belief that the courts remain the final constitutional safeguard when other institutions fail.
The letter concluded,
“We are not questioning the judiciary. In fact, we turn to the courts when every mechanism fails. When this too fails, it leaves open the question, who do we now turn to? We leave that question for you to ponder upon,”
The exchange marks the latest escalation in the ongoing political confrontation between the ruling BJP and the Opposition over the integrity of India’s electoral process. While the Opposition has alleged that recent electoral roll verification exercises could disenfranchise genuine voters and affect the fairness of elections, the BJP maintains that the Special Intensive Revision is a routine statutory exercise aimed solely at ensuring free, fair and accurate elections.
The controversy also places renewed focus on the role of constitutional institutions including the Election Commission of India and the judiciary in addressing disputes concerning the conduct of elections, voter registration and democratic accountability.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE