Two of the three election commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, objected to decisions made in the Election Commission of India (ECI)’s name without their knowledge, the Indian Express reported on Wednesday. The commissioners flagged concerns ranging from unilateral changes to voter registration forms and centralised control over IT systems to decisions on deletion and restoration of names. Because the software did not allow the update to be recorded, they cited a case in Goa as part of Special Intensive Revision (SIR) where 97 voters verified as eligible by ground officers could not be added to the rolls.
The election commissioners have raised some very valid issues, which are legal in nature. The law prescribes one form, and we are using another form. So, with whose authority has this form been changed? They are also saying the procedure adopted is actually impeding the statutory powers of the ERO [Electoral Registration Officer]. So if these allegations are right, it is a very serious issue. There has to be an official statement giving full details on when the commission took all these decisions. If two commissioners are saying that they were not involved, then the only way to refute this is to show a record that they were present in the commission meeting in which these decisions were taken. It is very simple. The law prescribes a certain procedure, and it empowers certain authorities. Technology is only a tool. You write by hand, you write on a computer, or you use ERONET. This is all a technological support system. That does not take away…after all, there were electoral rolls before as well. And they had a sanctity, whether it was with the BLO [Block Level Officer] or ERO. So in this, decentralisation and centralisation, if you make such a system in which all electoral rolls are integrated, it is fine; it is good. There is nothing wrong with that. But that does not take away what should not be taken away. There is authority invested in officers under law. So if I, as an ERO, hear somebody’s petition and find that, yes, this name should be deleted, or this name should be added, then I should be able to do it, no? I should not have to rely on someone, a third party, to delete it. The functioning of the ECI is governed by a law. That law clearly states that, as far as possible, decisions will be taken unanimously, but if not unanimously, then by a majority. So two is always more than one. So I do not know why the decision of the two could not prevail or did not prevail.
They are saying that Form 6 [requiring new voters to declare whether they, a parent, or a grandparent appeared on the “last SIR” roll] was changed without following due procedure.
