Electoral roll row : Why ECI is facing trust crisis

NOW that the government has yielded to having a discussion on electoral reforms in Parliament after a tough posturing, will it help resolve the controversy regarding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls (ER)?The decision of the Election Commission of India (ECI) to conduct the SIR in an unprecedented manner should rank among its most controversial one, creating a din like never before. For the past six months, the debate has been dominated by claims of 'purification' by the ECI, allegations of mass disenfranchisement by civil society organisations and Opposition political parties, a stout defence by the ruling party and a studious steering by the Supreme Court. All this, to the utter bewilderment of the electors whose right is at stake.The Parliament finding the time to discuss electoral reforms is welcome. Political parties have seldom been at the forefront of driving electoral reforms despite being the principal stakeholders in the electoral process, next only to electors. The governments too have been reluctant reformers, often pushed by the SC. The ECI has been a passive pursuer of the reform agenda, routinely reminding the government of the wish-list it proudly touts as its commitment to clean elections.The Parliament has been instrumental in carrying out significant reforms for enhancing voter participation, supporting technological advancements, curbing criminalisation, enhancing transparency and improving conduct during elections. In 1988, it reduced the voting age from 21 to 18 years and in 2021, introduced multiple qualifying dates (the first of January/April/July/October) in a year to register as voters as soon as they turn 18, instead of waiting for January 1 of the following year. In 1993, it introduced the Elector's Photo Identity Cards (EPICs).The phased introduction of electronic voting machines from 1998 was followed by the mandatory use of the voter verifiable paper audit trail in 2019. The disclosure of the antecedents of candidates from 2003 onwards was the result of a SC order, as was the immediate disqualification of convicted legislators in 2013 following the Lily Thomas case. Parliament also legislated on booth-capturing in 1989, allowing the ECI to adjourn or countermand an election in the event of booth-capturing or large-scale violence.These reforms, driven by the ECI/Parliament/SC, have generally aimed at making the electoral process more transparent, free and fair. The sole exception being the government's suo moto 'reform' of the anonymous electoral bonds, subsequently held 'unconstitutional' by the SC in 2024, without anyone being prevented from enjoying the fruits of this unconstitutional instrument of political funding.Despite the above legislative changes, the list of pending reforms is large — from making the law on the disqualification of candidates more stringent to the alternative modes of funding of political parties and capping of their poll expenses. A grave matter of concern continues to be the lack of clarity on the legal status of political parties, and also the need to bring them within the ambit of the Right to Information Act. While overlooking these critical areas, Parliament is actively engaged in deliberating the mother of all 'reforms' — the one nation one election Bill.One wonders what the proposed daylong discussion will cover or is aimed at. There is no reform agenda before the members for consideration and any amount of discussion on the most contentious issue of SIR will serve little purpose because most parties are likely to reiterate their known positions. The ECI, meanwhile, might continue its 'social distancing'.With the SC giving a near carte blanche to the ECI to chart its own course by not stopping it in its tracks in the matter of SIR, it is entirely up to the ECI to douse the passions. The apprehension of disenfranchisement is now combined with the grim reality of the deaths of many booth level officers (BLOs), supposedly caused by the burden of excessive workload due to tight timelines. The former has dented the ECI's image of fairness, making it seem like an obdurate constitutional body bulldozing its way to accomplishing its self-imposed mandate. The deaths, however, have sullied its track record of being a sensitive, friendly patriarch of the massive manpower doing 'national duty' at its behest.Whatever be the cause of the unfortunate deaths, the ECI should be worried because these are avoidable peacetime casualties. Shouldn't the ECI take the blame for making the ER revision, a perfect peacetime activity, into a war on phantom ineligibility?The ECI must introspect and disclose to the people the tangible gains it achieved in improving the quality of Bihar's final ER, after evaluating it against all the parameters by which the ECI assesses the health of any ER. It should run the ERs of all states through the deduplication software that it has successfully employed in the past and identify all duplicate entries for deletion as per the prescribed procedure.There is no reason why it has decided to abandon the software and rely on the elector's conscience to submit "only one enumeration form to avoid duplication." The ECI must clearly explain what it seeks to achieve through the nationwide SIR, which it cannot achieve through the routine revision procedures it has always followed.Most of all, the ECI must forsake the obsession with the identification parade of all the existing electors in its search for the 'ineligible' elector it couldn't find through the SIR in Bihar. It has been argued in the SC that the Constitution confers the right to vote on all citizens under Article 326. The ECI's mandate is to prepare the ERs and conduct elections as per its overarching authority under Article 324 as circumscribed by Article 327. While Article 324 empowers it, Article 327 builds guardrails. The removal of 'ineligible' electors must be done in keeping with the provisions of the existing Act and rules. The ECI cannot, and should not, invent a procedure, which is seen to be working against the interests of the citizens by making them responsible for 'regaining' their legitimate right to vote.Let us hope the debate in Parliament nudges the ECI to recalibrate its approach required to reclaim its trust with the people. The ECI is as much a creature of the Constitution as Parliament or the SC. If its door and mind are open, people wouldn't be forced to knock at other doors. Being born before the Republic, the ECI has an ante-natal bond with citizens. It would be a sad day if an order of the SC is needed to remind it of its intrinsic bond; sadder still if a political turmoil should.

Electoral roll row : Why ECI is facing trust crisis

The ECI cannot invent procedures that force citizens to ‘regain’ a right that the Constitution already gives them.

Ashok Lavasa

Electoral roll row : Why ECI is facing trust crisis

The ECI cannot invent procedures that force citizens to ‘regain’ a right that the Constitution already gives them.

Ashok Lavasa

Unlock Premium Insights in This Article