Why This Verdict Will Carry a Stain
The ECI Deleted Lakhs of Citizens Without Authority, But Didn't Deported Even a Single, If They Were Foreigners
Whether Mamata Banerjee wins big or Himanta Biswa Sarma loses Assam, the doubts about the sanctity of this Commission will not disappear. The problem is not the result—the problem is the process.
By Onkareshwar Pandey
NEW DELHI, May 03, 2026: While the television channels hype the counting for five state assemblies tomorrow on May 4, 2026, India will not only watch the winners and the losers. A third, more disturbing verdict will also be delivered—one on the fundamental credibility of the Election Commission of India (ECI) itself. History will record that this election was conducted by a "Non-Commissioned Commission" that remained silent on blatant violations of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) and acted with visible selectivity. Whether Mamata Banerjee wins big or Himanta Biswa Sarma loses Assam, the doubts about the sanctity of this Commission will not disappear. The problem is not the result—the problem is the process.
Yes, it is correct to say: The Verdict of 5 States Was Delivered Under a Non-Commissioned Election Commission. That headline is not hyperbole—it is a factual summation of the constitutional crisis that unfolded before the nation.
The ECI, under Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, enters tomorrow’s count with its credibility battered—not merely by political opponents, but by its own actions, judicial scrutiny, and a growing mountain of unanswered questions from civil society. This is not a rhetorical flourish; it is a documented, verifiable, and deeply troubling reality.
No analysis—no exit poll, no seat projection, no punditry—can hold any value if there remains even an iota of doubt over the integrity of the election process itself. Throughout this entire cycle, the Commission remained "not commissioned." It failed to perform its primary duty: enforcing the MCC with even-handed severity. This article records an in-depth analysis of the 2026 Assembly Elections—a deep-dive editorial opinion in the tradition of truth-based, hardcore journalism.
What the Model Code of Conduct Actually Says
The MCC is not a mere suggestion. Under Article 324 of the Constitution, it carries constitutional weight. Every violation documented in this series falls squarely within these prohibitions:
- Section I(2): Criticism must be confined to policies and programs; no unverified allegations.
- Section I(3): No appeal to caste or communal feelings; places of worship must not be used for propaganda.
- Section VII(1)(a) & (4): No combining official visits with electioneering; no government ads or misuse of media for partisan publicity.
- Section VII(6): No financial grants or promises thereof once elections are announced.
- Section VII(2): Public spaces and helipads must not be monopolized by the party in power.
The Great Disenfranchisement:
From Bihar to West Bengal, the ECI Made Lakhs of Indian Citizens Out of Voting and Snatched Citizenship Rights
There is a stain darker than selective MCC enforcement—a stain that runs through the very fabric of India's electoral democracy. The Election Commission of India, in its pursuit of "clean rolls," has systematically deleted lakhs of Indian citizens from the voter lists across multiple states, including Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal. In doing so, it has usurped a power it does not possess: the power to determine citizenship.
This is not a minor administrative overreach. This is a constitutional usurpation.
The Scale of Deletion – A National Emergency for Democracy
From West Bengal to Assam, the ECI Made Lakhs of Indian Citizens Out of Voting
According to the final electoral rolls published by the Election Commission of India on April 15, 2026, for the five poll-bound states, the following deletions were recorded: West Bengal — 24.16 lakh names removed (including 3.56 lakh marked as "Doubtful Citizenship"); Assam — 9.87 lakh names removed (including 5.97 lakh marked as "Doubtful Citizenship/D-Voters"); Tamil Nadu — 12.40 lakh names removed; Kerala — 4.92 lakh names removed; Puducherry — 28,000 names removed. In total, over 51.63 lakh citizens were deleted from the voter rolls across these five states. Among them, more than 9.5 lakh persons were marked as "Doubtful Citizenship" — but the ECI has no constitutional authority to declare anyone a foreigner. That power rests exclusively with the Ministry of Home Affairs and Foreigners Tribunals under the Citizenship Act, 1955. The ECI itself admitted in a Supreme Court affidavit that it cannot terminate citizenship. Yet it deleted these voters anyway, creating a constitutional limbo: neither declared foreigners for deportation, nor allowed to vote. This is not democracy. This is disenfranchisement by administrative fiat.
The answer is not known. The ECI has not provided it. And that silence is itself an indictment.
The Jurisdictional Overreach: Who Decides Citizenship?
The fundamental legal question at the heart of this crisis is simple: Does the Election Commission of India have the authority to decide who is a citizen of India?
The Constitution of India, the Citizenship Act, 1955, and the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) provide a clear answer: No. That authority rests exclusively with the Central Government and quasi-judicial bodies like Foreigners Tribunals.
Let us examine the legal architecture:
The Citizenship Act, 1955, Section 9 – This provision deals with the termination of citizenship and vests the power to decide questions regarding acquisition of citizenship exclusively in the Central Government. The Supreme Court has consistently held that only the Central Government can determine whether a person has lost Indian citizenship.
The Foreigners Act, 1946, Section 3(2)(c) and 3(2)(e) – These provisions vest the Union Government with the power to detain and deport illegally staying foreign nationals. The Ministry of Home Affairs has explicitly stated that the detection, detention, and deportation of such individuals is an "ongoing process" that falls within its jurisdiction.
The Deportation Manual, 2026 – In April 2026, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued the Deportation Manual 2026, providing standard operating procedures to states and Union Territories for the prevention, detection, movement restriction, and deportation of illegal migrants. This manual was shared with Border Guarding Forces, the Bureau of Immigration, FRROs, and FROs. Notably, the Election Commission of India was not listed as an authority empowered to make citizenship determinations.
Article 239(1) of the Constitution – Administrators of Union Territories have been directed to discharge the functions of the Union Government with regard to the detention and deportation of illegally staying foreign nationals . Again, the ECI is absent.
Article 258(1) of the Constitution – The powers of the Union Government under the Foreigners Act, 1946, have been entrusted to state governments as well . But not to the ECI.
The ECI's Arrogation of Power – And What the Supreme Court Said
Despite this clear constitutional and statutory framework, the Election Commission has claimed for itself the power to scrutinize citizenship.
In an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court in July 2025, the ECI stated: "ECI is vested with the power to scrutinise whether a proposed elector fulfils the criteria for being registered as a voter in the electoral roll, which includes, inter alia, an assessment of citizenship as per Article 326 of the COI. Such scrutiny is constitutionally mandated and crystallised by virtue of RP Act 1950. This power flows directly from the provisions of Article 324 read with 326 and Sections 16 and 19 of the RP Act 1950".
But here is the critical concession buried in the same affidavit:
The ECI admitted that under Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955, "it is only for this limited purpose that the exclusive jurisdiction has been vested in the Central Government, to the exclusion of all other authorities".
The ECI further acknowledged: "Other aspects related to citizenship can be inquired into by other relevant authorities for their purposes, including those who are constitutionally obligated to do so, i.e., the ECI".
Notice the sleight of hand:
The ECI claims it can inquire into citizenship "for its purposes" even as it admits the Central Government has "exclusive jurisdiction" over citizenship questions. This is legal sophistry, not constitutional reasoning.
More importantly, the Supreme Court itself has pushed back.
During the hearing of petitions challenging the SIR exercise, a bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Joymalya Bagchi told the Election Commission that "citizenship is an issue to be determined not by the Election Commission of India, but by the MHA". The Court explicitly suggested that documents like Aadhaar, voter identity cards, and ration cards should be considered valid proof—a suggestion the ECI rejected
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, arguing before the Supreme Court, put it even more starkly: *"Determination of citizenship lies exclusively with the Central government under Sections 8 and 9 of the Citizenship Act or with the courts and Foreigners Tribunals. By requiring EROs to scrutinise citizenship documents, mark suspected non-citizens and report them to the Home Department, the Election Commission has acted ultra vires the Constitution and the Citizenship Act. It has effectively created a parallel mechanism of citizenship determination through the electoral process. This breaches statutory limits."*
Singhvi further argued that the ECI had created a "temporary citizenship list" and reversed the burden of proof, forcing individuals to prove their citizenship rather than the state proving otherwise. "The original list becomes a presumptive temporary list. Second, I have to prove that I am a citizen. The burden is reversed. They file an objection against me and I am forced into an adjudication. This is very serious. The Election Commission has arrogated to itself a power it does not have."
The Fundamental Mandate of the ECI: Enable Voting, Not Decide Citizenship
Let us be absolutely clear about what the Election Commission's constitutional mandate actually is.
Article 324 of the Constitution vests the ECI with the "superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to Parliament and to the Legislature of every State." The Representation of the People Act, 1950 (Sections 16 and 19) further elaborates on the qualifications and disqualifications for registration.
But nowhere—not in Article 324, not in the RP Act, not in any statutory provision—is the Election Commission empowered to declare a person a foreigner, to deport anyone, or to make a final determination of citizenship status.
The ECI's own statement to the Supreme Court inadvertently admitted this: "Under the SIR exercise, the citizenship of an individual will not terminate on account of the fact that he/she is held to be ineligible for registration in the electoral rolls" . In other words, the ECI can remove you from the voter list, but it cannot declare you a foreigner. It can snatch your vote, but it cannot deport you.
This is the crux of the crisis: The ECI has created a category of people who are, in its view, not citizens for voting purposes, but who remain citizens for every other purpose—subject to no deportation, no legal proceeding, no determination by a Foreigners Tribunal. These individuals exist in a constitutional limbo, their citizenship rights suspended by an authority that lacks the power to determine those rights.
If these individuals are actually foreigners, they should be declared as such by the competent authority (the MHA and Foreigners Tribunals) and immediately deported under the Foreigners Act, 1946, and the Deportation Manual, 2026 . But since the Commission cannot do that—since it admits it cannot terminate citizenship—its entire deletion drive has sent a nationwide sense of confusion and fear.
The ECI has forgotten its primary mandate: to make every eligible Indian citizen vote. Its secondary function is to ensure that ineligible persons (including non-citizens) are not on the rolls. But the presumption must always be in favor of the citizen. The burden must never be reversed. And no authority other than the MHA and the Foreigners Tribunals can make a final determination that someone is a foreigner.
The Practical Reality: Mass Confusion and Voter Intimidation
The practical consequences of this overreach are devastating. Citizens who have voted for decades, who possess voter ID cards, ration cards, Aadhaar cards, and passports, are being asked to "prove" their citizenship or face deletion . The ECI has explicitly stated that the EPIC (Voter Photo Identity Card) "by its very nature, merely reflects the current state of the electoral roll and cannot, in itself, establish antecedent eligibility for inclusion in the roll" .
Let that sink in: Your voter ID card is not proof that you are eligible to vote.
The ECI has also refused to accept Aadhaar or ration cards as proof of citizenship, despite the Supreme Court's suggestion . Instead, it has limited the acceptable documents to an indicative list of 11 documents—none of which, the Commission admits, are exhaustive or conclusive .
The result? Lakhs of ordinary Indians—the poor, the illiterate, the rural, the marginalized—are being told that the documents they possess are not good enough. They must now navigate a bureaucratic maze to "prove" they are Indian. And if they fail, they lose their vote. But they are not declared foreigners. They are not deported. They simply exist in a state of statelessness for electoral purposes.
This is not democracy. This is disenfranchisement by administrative fiat.
The Massive CAPF Deployment: 2,400 Companies, Approximately 2 Lakh Personnel
The central government's deployment of Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) in the 2026 Assembly elections reached unprecedented and deeply troubling levels.
For the two-phase state assembly polls in West Bengal held on April 23 and April 29, 2026, the Election Commission deployed 2,400 companies of Central Armed Police Forces . With approximately 80-100 personnel per company, this translates to roughly 2 lakh paramilitary personnel deployed in a single state .
To understand the disproportionality, consider these comparisons:
- Delhi Assembly Elections, 2025: 220 paramilitary companies for 70 seats (approximately 3 companies per constituency)
- Bihar Assembly Elections, 2025: 1,200 to 1,500 companies for 243 seats
- Jammu & Kashmir Assembly Elections, 2024: Approximately 635 companies for 90 constituencies (an insurgency-affected state)
- West Bengal, 2026: 2,400 companies for 294 seats (approximately 8 companies per constituency)
The ratio of paramilitary deployment in Bengal is higher than in any other state, including Jammu & Kashmir — a region actively engaged in counter-insurgency operations .
The TMC questioned this deployment, noting that historical violence in Assembly elections is minimal compared to Panchayat polls (conducted by the State EC). The charge is serious: this force was used not merely to maintain order, but to create an atmosphere of intimidation. Armored vehicles — typically seen on the streets of Kashmir — have been patrolling Bengal's neighborhoods . Director Generals of all paramilitary forces held a joint war-room meeting to plan voting day — a level of coordination usually reserved for national security emergencies, not democratic exercises .
The rationale offered by officials is "efficiency" and the state's "notorious electoral history" of political violence . But as one analyst has noted: "Forces rarely can create conditions of free choice and it generally replace them. In many areas paramilitary units have outnumbered local voters... This is not normal. It is a visible shift from the routine process of democratic participation."