Corporate do Not Want Democracy to Survive in the Country
Corporate do Not Want Democracy to Survive in the Country
Dinkar Kapoor, State General Secretary, All India Peoples Front, Uttar Pradesh
A significant debate has begun in the country following reports published by The Indian Express exposing alleged irregularities in the Election Commission and issues related to its internal functioning. Once again, the accountability, transparency and democratic functioning of constitutional institutions have come to the centre of public discourse. At least three serious questions emerge from the entire episode: changes made to Form-6 used for registration of new voters; the process of deleting, adding and restoring names in electoral rolls; the centralisation of the voter database and software; and, most importantly, the legality of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, which began in Bihar and has subsequently been extended to other states. Alongside this, questions have also emerged regarding the functioning of the three-member Election Commission, where decisions appear to have been taken arbitrarily and unilaterally rather than through democratic procedures.
Former Chief Election Commissioner Dr. S.Y. Quraishi has questioned the legality of a nationwide Special Intensive Revision (SIR), stating that there is no clear constitutional provision for conducting such a revision across the entire country, nor is there any such provision in the Representation of the People Acts and Rules. In this context, the Election Commission refers to the powers vested in it under Article 324 of the Constitution and the laws relating to representation of the people. However, these provisions empower the Election Commission to conduct an SIR in a particular area or a part thereof under specific circumstances. Reports have emerged that a large number of voters have been deleted from the original electoral rolls during the SIR process. Across various states, around 13 crore names have reportedly been deleted, including 2.07 crore voters in Maharashtra and 2.05 crore in Uttar Pradesh. The most important question is whether those whose names were deleted were given adequate notice, an opportunity of hearing and a right to appeal. In many cases, they were not.
The changes in Form-6 are also part of this wider debate. Under the statutory procedure prescribed by Rules 13(A) and 26 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, any change in the prescribed Form-6 for voter registration cannot simply be made through an administrative order; it must be undertaken through the procedure prescribed by law. This is why the additional declaration or document requiring information about whether a parent, guardian or relative was included in an earlier SIR has been termed illegal and unauthorised by two Election Commissioners. Not only this, even the Special Summary Revision (SSR), the annual exercise conducted twice a year for adding new voters, was not carried out, resulting in many young people who had attained the age of 18 being unable to get their names added to the electoral rolls.
Similarly, the process of adding, deleting or restoring names in electoral rolls assigns a defined role to Electoral Registration Officers at the local level. Instead, the operation of the voter database and software has become highly centralised, raising serious questions regarding transparency, accountability, citizens' grievance-redressal mechanisms and electoral impartiality.
The Indian Express report has raised serious questions regarding differences and dissent within the Election Commission. According to the report, between November 2025 and August 2026, the two Election Commissioners recorded their objections on 14 occasions and formally communicated their concerns in writing to Cabinet Secretary T.V. Somanathan. Under the laws and rules governing the Election Commission, decisions are required to be taken either unanimously or by majority. However, this procedure was not followed. The government at the highest level, including the Prime Minister himself, was aware of these developments, yet remained silent and allowed the situation to continue.
It is clear that this entire controversy is not confined merely to the Election Commission. Behind it lies the broader ideological project of the Corporate–Hindutva nexus aimed at dismantling democracy. This is closely linked to the growing economic inequality and concentration of wealth in the country. According to the World Inequality Database, World Bank Economic Review and various economic studies, a large share of India's national wealth and income is concentrated in the upper sections of the population.
Available estimates suggest that the top 1 percent of the population owns around 40 percent of the country's national wealth, while the bottom 50 percent owns only around 6 percent. Similarly, there is enormous inequality in income distribution. The top 1 percent receives 23.3 percent of national income, while the top 10 percent receives 57 percent. In contrast, the bottom 50 percent receives only around 13 percent of national income.
Over the past decade, the number of billionaires in India and their combined wealth have also increased sharply. Around 2014, there were approximately 56 billionaires in the country with a combined wealth of $191.5 billion, whereas by 2026 their number had risen to 229, with total wealth exceeding $1 trillion. The concentration of wealth in the hands of a few billionaires is an indication of the rapid pace at which capital has become concentrated in the Indian economy. Take the example of Gautam Adani. According to available global billionaire rankings, his wealth was around $2.8 billion in 2014, whereas by 2026 it had increased nearly 29-fold to more than $81 billion—an increase of approximately 2,821 percent. The major factors behind this rise include the valuation of companies in the stock market, government support, and dominance over ports, energy and public investment projects.
The fundamental question is this: when economic power becomes increasingly concentrated in a few large corporate groups, the independence and accountability of democratic institutions begin to pose a threat to their interests. Across the world, global capital is seeking to dismantle democracy and the welfare state. The same process is underway in India. From its very inception, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) has opposed constitutional democracy in India. It does not accept the principle embodied in the Constitution of “one person, one vote and one political value” and seeks to restrict political rights to certain affluent and privileged sections. Therefore, for corporate forces seeking to dismantle democracy, the authoritarian political ideology of the BJP-RSS has become extremely useful.
At such a time, there is a need not only to intensify the movement for the cancellation of the SIR and for the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, but also to link these demands with the broader questions of economic inequality and the growing concentration of capital. Democracy cannot be strengthened in any meaningful sense without strengthening rights relating to education, healthcare, employment, social security, land and housing. The broader objective must be democratic intervention against the excessive concentration of economic power; independence, transparency and accountability of constitutional institutions; and protection of every citizen's right to vote and constitutional rights.
Date: 28 September 2026