Even though we became a democracy only in 1950, we Indians have taken to democracy like a duck takes to water.
Over the decades, democratic institutions have taken deep root, and the system of checks and balances has steadily strengthened.
The biggest check has been the Judiciary, which invented the extra constitutional concepts of basic structure and collegium. Our higher judiciary is more independent (in fact to the risk of being a state within a state) than anywhere else in the world.
Similarly, other institutions, including Election Commission have progressively become more robust (e.g., having 3 ECs with equal powers and many more such measures over years)
India's electoral system has become increasingly robust, transparent, and technology-driven. The adoption of EVMs, voter identity cards, and other technological innovations has significantly strengthened the integrity of elections.
Recent elections in West Bengal, for example, were notable for being conducted without the large-scale violence that had historically accompanied some previous polls. That said, challenges remain. Areas that could benefit from further improvement include:
-Maintenance and accuracy of electoral rolls
-Management of voter migration between constituencies
-Identification and removal of voters who have died or emigrated
-Greater integration of technology to streamline these processes
These are operational issues that can continue to improve through better systems and technology.
India's democratic framework provides both procedural and institutional safeguards to address concerns about electoral administration. Voters left out in the SIR process have an appeal process, and in states where SIR has been conducted, there is no evidence of very large number of voters being left out, who have to then use the appeal process. And more importantly, we have courts to check on the functioning of the EC
Concerns were recently raised that the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) had acted unilaterally. If true, such action would be inconsistent with the legal framework governing the Commission. In response, all three Election Commissioners issued a statement asserting that decisions had been taken unanimously.
The Supreme Court has since directed the Election Commission to provide evidence showing that decisions were made either unanimously or by majority, meaning with the support of at least two of the three Election Commissioners. The Court has further indicated that if any decision is found not to have received the support of at least two commissioners, it may declare that decision invalid.
This is how in a democracy, such grievances must be addressed, not by threatening to burn the country, if my demands are not being met.