1. An Illu stration of Bias*:

The fundamental pillar of a state’s democratic structure is the rule of law and its impartial application. The constitutional responsibility of the Election Commission is not limited merely to conducting elections; rather, it also includes pre-election scrutiny of candidates’ eligibility, resolution of allegations, and ensuring legal transparency. However, recent realities show that the Election Commission has granted legitimacy to accused loan defaulters and dual citizens without conducting investigations or taking legal action, an act that amounts to blatant defiance toward the state.

*2. Granting Legitimacy Without Resolving Allegations — A Clear Violation of the Law*:

According to the Constitution and the Election Commission Act, any individual who is a loan defaulter or holds dual citizenship is disqualified from contesting for a parliamentary seat. When such allegations arise, it is the mandatory duty of the Election Commission to investigate and resolve them. In practice, however, nominations are being upheld while the allegations are kept “pending” or “unresolved.” This is not merely administrative negligence; rather, it is a conscious disregard for the law.

*3. Visible Bias and the Crisis of Public Trust*:

When candidates facing similar allegations have their nominations cancelled in some cases, while accused candidates from influential political parties are effortlessly granted exemptions, the neutrality of the Election Commission inevitably comes under question. Such discriminatory conduct has fostered a public perception that the Election Commission has transformed from an independent constitutional institution into a protective shield for political interests.
Why This Constitutes Defiance Toward the State:
The state does not merely mean the government; the state embodies the Constitution, the law, the judiciary, and the collective rights of citizens. Granting legitimacy to accused individuals without investigation means—
weakening the provisions of the Constitution,
undermining the foundation of the rule of law,
sending the message that the law is strict for ordinary citizens but lenient for the powerful.
Such a stance is nothing short of blatant defiance toward the state.

*4. The Inevitability of Reconstituting the Election Commission*:

Until these serious allegations are resolved, a free, fair, and credible election under the current biased Election Commission is impossible. Therefore—
reassessment of the Commission’s composition, decision-making process, and accountability,
establishment of a transparent and time-bound framework for resolving allegations,
reconstitution of a politically independent Election Commission—
these are no longer mere demands; they have become a national necessity.

*5. The Commission’s Failure Ultimately Falls Upon the State*:

If the Election Commission stands as a shield for the accused, elections cease to be an instrument of democracy and become merely a formal mechanism for legitimizing power. To safeguard the state from this crisis, reform and reconstitution of the biased Election Commission are imperative. Otherwise, distrust, instability, and constitutional crisis will deepen further— and the ultimate burden will be borne by the state itself.