DC Edit | Righting Wrongs Welcome But SIR Was Abominable

The communiqué issued by the Election Commission of India (EC) after a meeting attended by all the three members is a welcome note in that it lists all that has gone wrong since it rolled out the special intensive revision of the electoral rolls across the country and also has words on how it plans to correct it. However, the correction process unanimously agreed to by the three cannot undo the grave threat the EC is posing to representative democracy in India through its calculated actions that disenfranchises a large number of people. In fact, it makes it all the more evident as to how untenable the continuation of the men who oversaw it is, especially that of chief election commissioner Gyanesh Kumar who orchestrated it all.

The only relief is the decision that booth level officers will now visit the homes of persons “to whom notice has been issued during the ongoing SIR, for being unmapped or for logical discrepancies” for collection of documents. Only in exceptional circumstances, as decided by the ERO, will the hearing be held, preferably online. The elector can also authorise an adult member of the family to attend the hearing on their behalf. This is the right thing to do. An entry of an elector on the electoral roll is made by the EC after it is satisfied that the elector meets the conditions stipulated by the law. If the commission feels the person is no longer eligible to be there, then it is for the commission to convince the elector, and not vice-versa. This should have been the approach taken by the EC from the beginning. One can only hope that the EC has the manpower and logistical prowess to undertake the mission as it has put crores of people in this predicament.

While the EC returns to its legitimate ways of functioning by correcting itself, the question of the victims of its wrongs cannot be left unaddressed. There were lakhs of people in states such as Bihar and West Bengal who were denied an opportunity to participate in the elections. West Bengal is the worst case in point where 90 lakh people were removed from the list and 22 lakh of them have moved the tribunals. What justification does the EC have to offer them for the denial of their right? As per EC’s own admission, the tribunals will take more than 12 years to decide all the cases. Its political import cannot be lost sight of: the tribunals have allowed 93 per cent of the petitions and the BJP swept the state polls scoring 33 lakh more votes over its main rival Trinamul Congress.

The EC has now said the requirement of a statement linking a new voter-applicant to her parents/grandparents/spouse has no sanction of the law; its claim is that the Supreme Court has cleared it. That is not the way constitutional democracy functions. The Supreme Court is called to lay down the law when there is a perceptible urgency for it; the court ratifying an illegality cannot be an excuse for gross misuse of power. Forming an “independent panel” to ensure that the ECINet, the mobile application that serves as a centralised digital platform of the EC, is run professionally and is accessible is an admission of guilt over how it was being run earlier.

The answer to a possible question as to how undemocratic the way the EC was functioning was is contained in a statement that “for all Commission’s meetings, agenda will be circulated in advance and minutes will be issued”. This is an open admission by the CEC that he was running the institution that conducts the world’s largest exercise to pick a country’s rulers in the most undemocratic manner. The earlier it changes, the better.

And, too, since the questions involved in the SIR process are about foundational elements of Indian democracy, those who sought to tinker with it cannot be allowed to go scot-free.