Amid Opposition protests, 42 ex-judges warn against attempts to undermine EC

Forty-two former judges have issued an open letter defending the Special Intensive Revision and questioning unsupported vote theft claims. They said repeated attacks on constitutional institutions could erode public trust and should be challenged through legal channels.Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar (centre) with Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu (left) and Vivek Joshi (right). New Delhi,Oct 8, 2026 16:00 ISTAmid intensifying Opposition protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, 42 former judges have issued a strongly worded open letter expressing grave concern over what they described as a sustained campaign to undermine the Election Commission, the judiciary and other constitutional institutions.The signatories questioned allegations of “vote theft” made without supporting evidence and warned that repeatedly branding constitutional authorities as "thieves" and "compromised" could erode public trust in democratic institutions."Our concern is grave. India's constitutional bodies are under sustained attack. The Election Commission of India stands at the centre of this assault. Even the higher judiciary which we hold in high esteem, and statutory agencies have not been spared," the ex-judges wrote.The letter added, "Criticism of institutions is a democratic right. Denigration is not". "Constitutional authorities are now branded 'thieves', 'puppets' and 'compromised' from public platforms. Officers who conduct our elections are named, shamed and openly warned of reprisal once power changes hands. No court of law has found any of these charges proven," the former judges said in their open letter.The former judges also defended the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, describing it as a legally established exercise aimed at ensuring clean and accurate voter lists. They warned that attempts to delegitimise elections could fuel unrest and embolden "anarchic elements", stressing that "trust is the currency of democracy". The signatories urged political parties to raise their grievances through established legal and constitutional mechanisms, saying electoral disputes should be addressed through due process rather than by casting doubt on constitutional institutions and electoral processes."Allegations of 'vote theft' are made at press conferences, not before courts. When the Commission seeks a sworn declaration, none is filed. Electronic Voting Machines are blamed only after defeat. Victories won on the same machines go unquestioned. A party that has governed this nation for over five decades now claims that the very system which elected it is rigged," the ex-judges said, taking a direct swipe at Congress, which is leading the anti-CEC protests.The prominent names who signed the letter include former Supreme Court judges Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice Pankaj Mittal, former Delhi High Court judge Justice SN Dhingra, former Delhi High Court Chief Justice BC Patel and former Karnataka High Court Chief Justice Subhro Kamal Mukherjee among others.The former judge’s open support for the Election Commission comes as Opposition parties intensify their protests, with INDIA bloc leaders taking to the streets on Thursday, the third day of their continued agitation in the national capital. The Opposition anger against CEC Gyanesh Kumar renewed recently following allegations that several decisions, including those concerning the SIR, were taken arbitrarily by him, with the other two Commissioners dissenting on at least 14 occasions over 10 months.The Opposition parties are demanding Kumar’s resignation, accusing him of plotting the deletion of a large number of eligible voters from electoral rolls to benefit the BJP. As part of their protests, Opposition leaders also attempted to march towards the Election Commission headquarters on Tuesday, but were stopped by police, resulting in a nearly nine-hour-long standoff.The Election Commission, through statements, has rejected the allegations, asserting that all decisions were unanimous and that differences of opinion are a normal part of the democratic process.- Ends