New Delhi, Sept. 23 -- The two Election Commissioners - Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi - objected to various aspects of the electoral process, including new voter registration, deletion and restoration of names from the rolls, and the filing of appeals against orders restoring voters during the SIR process. The two ECs objected on record to steps taken by the poll panel 14 times over 10 months, The Indian Express reported on Wednesday.
The SIR exercise to weed out ineligible and deceased voters, which began in June last year with Bihar, has so far led to more than 13 crore names being deleted from draft rolls across 30 states and Union Territories. The maximum deletions have been recorded in the draft rolls of Delhi and Maharashtra.
Perhaps the most controversial development has been ECINet, launched on January 22. Described as the technological backbone for nearly a billion voters, it brought more than 40 apps and portals under one roof, according to Seema Khanna, Director General (IT) in the ECI.
Within months, however, ECINet, which had been described as lawful and trustworthy, shut out state-level officers legally responsible for adding or deleting names and updating electoral records. Their access was restricted by Khanna's team in New Delhi. This raised concerns about the integrity of the electoral process, with key software functions being centrally controlled by Khanna's division.
The two Election Commissioners raised red flags over the "gradual centralisation of the electoral roll database" and warned that ECINet was restricting the powers of officers on the ground who were responsible for preparing and finalising the rolls. The Indian Express report said that Goa's Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) found 97 voters eligible for inclusion in the final roll after hearing their cases and verifying the documents they had submitted. However, the software had no mechanism to record the ERO's decision, leaving the 97 voters out of the final electoral roll in Goa. Though the number was small, the report noted that the ECI's responsibility was to ensure that every eligible vote was counted.
On three occasions, the two ECs copied their notes to CEC Gyanesh Kumar. In effect, they were flagging what they viewed as violations of the law. Over 10 months, from November to August, the two Commissioners repeatedly raised their concerns in writing. In an unprecedented move, the two Commissioners also wrote separately to the Cabinet Secretary about the IT Division's work and the integrity of the voter software.
The SIR process was most contested in West Bengal, which went to polls in April this year and saw the BJP oust the TMC after securing a historic victory.
Around 91 lakh voters were deleted from the electoral rolls in Bengal following the SIR exercise. Last week, the ECI told the Supreme Court that 38 lakh appeals were pending before tribunals. Of these, 22.21 lakh were filed by deleted voters.
Interestingly, another 16.10 lakh appeals were filed against voters whose names had been included by judicial officers and whose deletion was subsequently sought.
The Express investigation revealed that Sandhu flagged this issue, questioning why the ECI had appealed against voters whose names judicial officers had included. Sandhu recorded that neither he nor Joshi nor the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) of West Bengal had been informed about the basis or process for filing the appeals.
The objections raised by the two Election Commissioners related to the core of the ECI's mandate: new voter registration; deletion and restoration of names from the rolls; filing appeals against orders restoring voters during the SIR process; and the custody and security of the entire electoral roll database.
All objections relating to these issues were copied to CEC Gyanesh Kumar. Sandhu alleged that the ECI acted against the written advice of the two Commissioners and described its actions as "unauthorised and illegal".
The rift has raised concerns over the concentration of power in a centrally controlled electoral-roll system that, according to the objections, effectively cut EROs out of key decisions. The SIR also raised concerns about the next generation of voters after Form 6, the statutory form used by new voters to register, was changed without the approval of the two ECs.
The revised Form 6 required applicants to choose one of three statements: whether their name appeared in the electoral roll during the last SIR held in the early 2000s; whether the name of a parent or grandparent appeared in that roll; or whether neither their name nor that of their parents appeared in it.
The Indian Express investigation revealed that the two ECs pointed out that Form 6 was a statutory form embedded in the rules and could not be changed without government approval. Sandhu wrote that the "unauthorised/illegal changes in Form-6 on the portal" had not been removed and that the original form had not been restored. He said the changes "must be removed immediately so that young and would-be first-time voters, who are otherwise eligible, can register themselves as voters as per law, without any harassment."
Published by HT Digital Content Services with permission from Millennium Post.