Pointed charges,
selective response

The measures announced by the Election Commission of India (ECI) to address concerns over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and the Commission’s functioning have only strengthened fresh charges against the body and the contentious voters’ scrutiny it introduced last year. These announcements came in response to last week’s media reports about dissent recorded by two election commissioners – Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi – against some of the arbitrary decisions taken by Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar. While revealing internal differences regarding the Commission’s processes, the reports heightened existing public concerns over the integrity and legality of the roll revision.A statement issued by the ECI after a meeting on Saturday said its contents had the approval of the “full Commission”. It said the agenda of the Commission’s meetings would now be circulated in advance, and their minutes would be issued. This must be read along with the charge that some ECI decisions were taken without consensus. The Commission has also softened its position on some procedures. It has announced a special drive to enrol voters left off the rolls. Fresh voter registration will be made easier, and a committee of experts will review ECINET’s functioning. Voters who have been issued notices will not need to attend hearings; Booth Level Officers (BLOs) can visit to verify documents. The ECI’s shift in position indirectly validates the reported concerns raised by the two commissioners.These measures raise more questions, while leaving some old ones unanswered. The ECI claims the declaration attached to Form 6 for including new voters—which was amended to require applicants to state if their parents were included in the previous SIR—had the Supreme Court’s approval. But no judgment has upheld this specific, additional provision, which Commissioner Sandhu described as illegal and unauthorised. The Commission is also silent on an important question: Who authorised the filing of over 16.1 lakh appeals against the inclusion of voters in West Bengal? The changes proposed by the Commission do not neutralise the illegality of the revision process or make up for the inconvenience it has caused the voters. They are an admission of operational discrepancies in the constitutional body. Far from being a credible defence, they have amplified calls to halt the SIR and hold CEC Gyanesh Kumar accountable for its failings.

Source: Deccan Herald