I Don’t Trust Election Commission and its SIR; SC’s Advisory Opinion Is a Setback” P. Thiaga Rajan’s Interview with Karan Thapar – The Wire, Nov 21, 2025

 

I Don’t Trust Election Commission and its SIR; SC’s Advisory Opinion Is a Setback”

P. Thiaga Rajan’s Interview with Karan Thapar – The Wire, Nov 21, 2025

Tamil Nadu IT Minister P. Thiaga Rajan (PTR) delivered a sharp, uncompromising critique of India’s electoral institutions and federal structure during his interview with Karan Thapar on The Wire (Nov 21, 2025). His views, grounded in data and political experience, raise urgent questions about the health of Indian democracy.

---

Distrust in the Election Commission and the SIR Process

PTR began the interview by expressing deep mistrust in the Election Commission of India (ECI) and the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Tamil Nadu.

He argued that:

1. The SIR lacks transparency and clarity in its methodology.

2. Multiple complaints by Tamil Nadu government officials about inconsistencies have gone unaddressed.

3. Patterns in voter roll changes raise doubts about whether the revision is being used selectively or politically.

4. The timing and execution of the SIR appear suspicious and misaligned with standard electoral protocols.

PTR stated unequivocally that he does not trust the manner in which the ECI is conducting this exercise, reflecting growing tensions between the state government and the Commission.

---

SC’s Advisory Opinion: A Blow to Federalism

In the second half of the interview, PTR turned to the Supreme Court’s recent advisory opinion on the powers of Governors and the President regarding assent to state bills.

PTR described the opinion as:

1. A setback for all states, especially those governed by opposition parties.

2. A decision that enables Governors to continue delaying bills indefinitely without facing consequences.

3. A weakening of federal principles by failing to insist on accountability or timelines for constitutional authorities.

4. An opinion that leaves states at the mercy of Governors appointed by the Centre.

He argued that the Court’s refusal to enforce firm timelines effectively legitimizes delays that have stalled crucial legislation in states like Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, and Kerala.

---

Disagreement Within DMK

PTR openly disagreed with his party colleague T. K. S. Elangovan, who praised the Court’s advisory as a sound decision.

PTR emphasized that:

1. He believes the Court’s stance does not resolve the core problem.

2. It leaves too much discretionary power with Governors.

3. It undermines the democratic will expressed through elected state legislatures.

4. This public divergence highlights internal discussions within the DMK on how federal issues should be legally interpreted and politically navigated.

---

A Two-Part Interview: Elections First, Federalism Next

The interview flowed in two distinct segments:

1. The SIR and Electoral Integrity – PTR laid out why Tamil Nadu is alarmed about potential manipulation of electoral rolls and why trust in the ECI is eroding.

2. Supreme Court Advisory – He argued that the opinion weakens the states and strengthens unelected authorities, creating further strain in Centre–state relations.

Both themes converge on a single conclusion:
India’s institutional checks and balances are weakening, especially for states governed by non-BJP parties.

---

Public Reaction: Growing Disillusionment

Viewer reactions to the interview reveal widespread concerns:

1. Many believe the ECI is compromised and no longer neutral.

2. There is perception of a broader erosion of institutional independence, including in the judiciary.

3. Comments reflect frustration, disillusionment, and fear of further centralization of power.

4. PTR’s forthright arguments struck a chord with audiences who feel democratic institutions are under pressure.

---

Conclusion

P. Thiaga Rajan’s interview with Karan Thapar stands out for its clarity, candour, and willingness to directly confront institutional dysfunction.
His arguments paint a stark picture: a democracy where voter rolls may be manipulated, Governors can indefinitely stall legislation, and institutions appear increasingly aligned with central political interests.

The conversation raises fundamental questions about India’s federal structure, democratic integrity, and the future of electoral fairness—questions that demand urgent national debate.

---