In India, democracy rests on two key principles: justice and accountability. Justice ensures fairness for all, as promised in the Constitution, while accountability holds powerful institutions — like courts and the Election Commission — answerable for their actions. These principles are deeply connected — without accountability, justice becomes uneven; without justice, accountability lacks meaning. When these systems fail, as seen in prolonged detentions and questionable electoral practices, public trust in democracy weakens, leaving citizens vulnerable. Take the case of the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, which killed 53 people and injured hundreds. Activists like Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), have spent over five years in jail without trials starting.
Khalid, a former student leader, was denied bail in September 2025 by the Delhi High Court, which cited his speeches and WhatsApp group links as evidence of a “conspiracy” to spark violence. Similarly, Imam’s bail was rejected for his protest speeches, despite no direct link to the riots. Others, like Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, and Abdul Khalid Saifi, face the same fate, with courts pointing to “serious allegations” without testing evidence. The Supreme Court has said long delays — like five years with only a few witnesses examined — justify bail, yet these rulings are ignored.
This keeps innocent people locked up, with over 70% of India’s prisoners awaiting trial, clogging jails and violating their right to a speedy trial. This isn’t just about one case. Courts, especially in high-profile matters, hesitate to grant bail under UAPA’s strict rules, which block release if charges seem “prima facie true”. This leads to delays, with some cases adjourned 14 times in 11 months. The backlog of 50 million cases nationwide shows a system struggling to deliver justice. Courts need to explain delays clearly and face scrutiny, maybe through an independent oversight body, to stay accountable. Without this, public trust drops. Surveys show only 42% of young urban Indians trust the judiciary today. Unchecked power risks turning justice into punishment before guilt is proven. The Election Commission of India (ECI) shows similar problems, but on a scale that touches every voter’s right to participate.
Tasked with ensuring free and fair elections under Article 324, the ECI has drawn fire for opacity and defensiveness in handling voter rolls, especially ahead of key state polls. In Maharashtra’s 2024 assembly elections, a civic group analysis uncovered major irregularities: between the May Lok Sabha polls and November assembly vote, the voter list grew by over 46 lakh names in just six months — far exceeding normal rates. This surge hit 85 constituencies where the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) had lost earlier, with additions clustered in 12,000 polling booths. In Mahadevapura, a Bangalore seat, over 1 lakh entries raised red flags — 11,965 duplicates, 40,009 invalid addresses, and 10,452 bulk registrations at single spots. The margin there jumped from 44,500 votes in 2023 to 1.14 lakh in 2024, despite only 20,000 actual new voters showing up. With 25 seats decided by under 3,000 votes and 69 by less than 10,000, these tweaks could flip outcomes, suggesting not errors but targeted manipulation. Opposition leaders, including Rahul Gandhi, spotlighted this in August 2025, claiming “vote theft” via fake additions that stole seats in the national polls. Gandhi presented ECI data showing 100,250 manipulated votes in Mahadevapura alone, enough to swing Bangalore Central.
He alleged a pattern: in Karnataka’s Aland, 6,018 names vanished from Congress areas via bulk forms filed from Delhi and Gurugram — hinting at a “call centre” scam using software to impersonate voters. In Maharashtra’s Rajura, 6,815 additions targeted BJP wins. Gandhi demanded OTP logs, phone records, and booth footage, accusing the ECI of shielding fraudsters. He even claimed insiders were leaking proof of centralised deletions.
The ECI’s response? It labelled the claims “absurd”, “misleading”, and “baseless”, issuing notices to Gandhi for a signed oath or apology within days. It clarified net additions were 40 lakh after deletions, with only six seats seeing over 50,000 adds — not the 47 Gandhi cited. Deletions need hearings, it stressed, and no public can erase names online. Yet, it withheld requested data, fuelling cries of evasion. This echoes Bihar’s 2025 Special Intensive Revision (SIR), the first full overhaul since 2003, meant to clean rolls of 2.2 million dead, 7 lakh duplicates, and 3.6 million migrants. But the rushed June-July drive, demanding strict proofs like Aadhaar (added after the court push), excluded millions — 6.5 million names were cut from the draft 72.4 million list. Reports surfaced of errors: wrong photos, dead voters listed, and migrants disenfranchised without notice. The opposition called it an “NRC clone”, a ploy to purge poor and minority voters before November polls, with 25,000-30,000 deletions per seat. Adding to distrust: the 2023 appointment law, post-Supreme Court push for neutrality, swapped the Chief Justice for a union minister in the selection panel — tilting toward executive control. Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, appointed under this, faced flak for defending the SIR as “transparent” while ignoring probes.
A 2025 Lokniti-CSDS survey across six states paints a grim picture: high trust in ECI plunged — from 56% to 31% in Uttar Pradesh, 68% to 41% in West Bengal, and worse in Madhya Pradesh (57% to 17%). “No trust” quadrupled in some areas, hitting 30% in Delhi.
Accountability matters because it ensures justice. Courts that delay bail without reason harm people like Khalid and Imam, just as the ECI’s secrecy undermines fair elections.
Both issues — detentions without trial and murky voter rolls — weaken democracy by sidelining citizens’ rights. Past court rulings, like the one in 2017, struck down unfair bail limits to protect freedom. Similarly, transparent elections are vital to reflect the people’s will. Fixing this requires clear steps: courts should track cases publicly and limit delays, while the ECI should share voter data openly, perhaps using secure tech like blockchain. Without these, justice and accountability remain hollow, threatening the democratic promise of fairness and trust.
Read more on Free Press Journal
