DC Edit | SC Order Reveals EC Trust Deficit
The judicial officers will now adjudicate claims and objections of the persons put on the “logical discrepancy” list, a job that would otherwise have been done by officers nominated by the EC
The Supreme Court taking the “extraordinary step” of ordering appointment of judicial officers in the wake of the "extraordinary circumstances” to end the “unfortunate blame game” and bridge the “trust deficit” between the Election Commission and the West Bengal government in the wake of the special intensive revision of the electoral rolls in the state is indeed a statement of mistrust about the way the poll panel has conducted the affairs. The judicial officers will now adjudicate claims and objections of the persons put on the “logical discrepancy” list, a job that would otherwise have been done by officers nominated by the EC.
Purification of the electoral rolls, the basic document for the election of rulers in democracy, is a solemn obligation of the state and its agencies, including the Election Commission. The agencies ought to take it up as an inclusive process, as suggested by the apex court repeatedly, and not as an exclusive one. However, the EC was focused on deleting names of people under curiously named heads such as logical discrepancies. Instead of proving to an individual why they were not eligible to be on the voter list, the EC shifted the onus on to the voter as to why they deserve to be there. What’s more, it rushed the process through with impossible deadlines which resulted in the death of several employees deputed for conducting it. It can only be hoped that the judicial officers now appointed will ensure that the so-called “logical discrepancies” will be attended to, taking the voter into confidence, and in an inclusive manner.
The Supreme Court has, however, insisted that the voter list will be published on February 28, with the condition that there can be a supplementary list. This reflects ad-hocism. It is putting the bona fide voters under pressure for no fault of theirs. The EC must realise that the purpose of the entire exercise is to serve the citizens better, and not to harm them. The Supreme Court must monitor the process more closely and ensure that the process is not unduly hastened.
