The controversy in Kerala over an Election Commission of India (ECI) letter bearing a political party’s seal has been officially dismissed as “clerical error.” An official has been suspended, explanations have been offered, and, we are told, the system has corrected itself. On the surface, the matter appears closed. But the unease it has generated refuses to settle. And rightly so.In democracies, institutions rarely lose credibility overnight. The erosion is gradual, almost imperceptible. An accumulation of small lapses, questionable decisions, and defensively worded clarifications. Each episode, taken in isolation, may seem trivial or explainable. Together, they begin to tell a different story. The Kerala incident is best understood not as an aberration but as part of a growing pattern that has steadily eroded public confidence in the ECI’s functioning. For an institution entrusted with safeguarding the integrity of elections, perception is as important as procedure.The ECI does not derive its authority from force or fear, but from trust that it stands above partisan considerations, that it enforces rules uniformly, and that it protects the sanctity of the electoral process. When that trust begins to weaken, even routine actions invite suspicion. The benefit of the doubt, once lost, is not easily restored.The present moment is marked precisely by this loss of confidence. Concerns about selective enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct, questions surrounding electoral roll revisions, and allegations of uneven responses to political actors have created a climate of unease. None of these, individually, may constitute definitive proof of institutional bias. But taken together, they point to a deeper problem: a widening gap between institutional intent and public perception. It is in this context that the call to impeach the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) must be examined. The move has been criticised in some quarters as excessive, premature, or merely symbolic. However, such criticisms often fail to engage with the underlying issue, the extent to which confidence in the institution has been compromised.Impeachment, an extraordinary measureImpeachment, by design, is an extraordinary measure. It is not meant for routine disagreements or policy differences. But precisely because it is extraordinary, it acquires meaning in moments when ordinary mechanisms appear inadequate. The question, therefore, is not whether impeachment is extreme, but whether the situation has reached a point where conventional responses no longer suffice.It is often argued that concerns about the ECI should be addressed incrementally through measures such as parliamentary debate, judicial scrutiny, or public engagement. These are, without doubt, important avenues. But when such mechanisms are repeatedly invoked without restoring trust, their continued use begins to feel insufficient. What is at stake here is not a single decision or policy, but the institution’s credibility.In such circumstances, the significance of an impeachment motion lies not solely in its outcome, but in what it represents. It is a formal acknowledgment that confidence has eroded to a level that demands the highest form of constitutional scrutiny. It creates a structured and visible record of dissent. It compels legislators to articulate their positions clearly. And it signals to the public that concerns about institutional integrity are being addressed through constitutional means rather than dissipating into ambiguity.Electoral legitimacy, after all, rests on an intangible but indispensable foundation: belief. Citizens participate in elections not merely because procedures exist, but because they trust those procedures to be administered impartially. Once that belief begins to fray, the process risks becoming mechanical rather than meaningful. It may continue to function, but it will cease to inspire confidence.The Kerala controversy illustrates how fragile this trust has become. The explanation of a “clerical error” may well be factually correct. However, in the present climate, such explanations struggle to persuade. The issue is not simply whether the mistake was genuine, but why it appears plausible to so many that it might not be. That plausibility is itself a symptom of declining institutional credibility. Addressing such a crisis requires more than administrative correction. Suspending an official may demonstrate procedural accountability, but it does little to address the larger perception problem. Trust, once eroded, demands a more substantive response that engages not just with specific lapses but with the institution’s overall functioning and accountability.This is where impeachment becomes relevant. It is not an act of hostility towards the institution, but an attempt to restore its credibility by subjecting it to the highest level of scrutiny available within the constitutional framework. To invoke it is to affirm that accountability is not optional, and that no office, however elevated, is beyond question.Critics often warn that such a move risks politicising a constitutional authority. But this concern, while valid in principle, overlooks an uncomfortable reality: the perception of politicisation already exists. The reluctance to confront it directly does not neutralise the problem; it merely allows it to persist. In fact, the failure to act in the face of sustained concern may contribute more to institutional decline than the act of scrutiny itself.An equally important, and somewhat troubling, aspect of this debate is the response of sections of the media. There has been a noticeable hesitation in fully engaging with the implications of the crisis. The language often employed is one of caution, urging restraint, warning against escalation, and emphasising the risks of institutional destabilisation. While such caution is not without merit, it can sometimes slip into an avoidance of difficult questions. The role of the media is not to shield institutions from discomfort, but to examine them with clarity and independence. When credible concerns arise about the functioning of a body as central as the ECI, it is incumbent upon the media to rigorously interrogate them.To prioritise the appearance of balance over the pursuit of truth is to dilute this responsibility. There is also a tendency to equate criticism of institutions with an erosion of democratic norms. This is a mistaken equivalence. Democracies are not weakened by scrutiny; the absence of it weakens them. When institutions are insulated from criticism, they risk becoming unaccountable. And when accountability diminishes, public trust inevitably follows.Calling for impeachment, therefore, should not be viewed through a narrow partisan lens. It is, at its core, a demand for accountability in the management of the democratic process. It reflects an insistence that the standards expected of constitutional authorities must be upheld, not merely in form but in spirit. To dismiss such a demand as merely symbolic is to underestimate the power of constitutional action. Symbols, in democratic life, are not empty gestures. They shape expectations, define boundaries, and influence institutional behaviour.An impeachment motion, even if unsuccessful, can recalibrate the terms of public debate. It can signal that certain concerns cannot be indefinitely deferred. The alternative – inaction – carries far greater risks. It suggests that even serious concerns about electoral integrity can be acknowledged without being meaningfully addressed. Over time, this fosters a sense of resignation among citizens, who may begin to see democratic processes as procedural exercises rather than genuine expressions of choice.Integrity of the ECI is not a partisan concernIt is also worth recognising that the integrity of the ECI is not a partisan concern. A credible electoral process serves all political actors, regardless of their current position in the political spectrum. Today’s incumbents are not guaranteed permanence. The strength of democratic institutions lies precisely in their ability to function impartially across changing political contexts. The present moment, therefore, calls for clarity rather than caution, and for principle rather than expediency. The Kerala controversy has brought into sharp focus a deeper crisis of trust. It has reminded us that institutional credibility, once compromised, cannot be restored through assurances alone.In the end, impeachment may not resolve all concerns. It may not even succeed. But its invocation would acknowledge that the issue at hand is serious enough to warrant the highest level of constitutional attention. It would affirm that the health of democracy depends not just on the conduct of elections, but on the credibility of those who conduct them.So, the big question now is not whether the ECI can continue to function, but whether it can continue to command trust. Without that trust, the processes it oversees risk losing their meaning. And when the meaning of democratic processes begins to erode, the consequences extend far beyond any single controversy.That is why this moment matters. Not because of one mistaken document, but because of what it reveals, and what it demands.P. John J. Kennedy is an educator and political analyst based in Bengaluru.