In a span of 10 months, two Election Commissioners have formally objected at least 14 times to decisions related to the Special Intensive Revisions (SIR), says an investigative report by ‘The Indian Express’. Election Commissioners - Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi - had taken stands against Election Commission’s multiple decisions related to SIR, including changes in Form 6 for the registration of new voters and centralised access to electoral roll database.
As per the report by Ritika Chopra published on September 23, the Election Commission went ahead with the decision to change Form 6 despite objections by the two Election Commissioners. The Form 6 was changed in July, where new voters had to declare whether their names or their parents’ names were part of the last SIR in the early 2000s.
The Indian Express reported that Joshi had warned against changes in Form 6 without making amendments in the Registration of Electoral Rules. Sandhu concurred with Joshi in the file. In a later note, Sadhu has termed the changes ‘unauthorised and illegal’ and asked why the new form was not removed from the portal. Despite objections, the EC went ahead with the new Form 6.
Centralised access
While Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) have the responsibility for preparation and control of each constituency’s voter’s list, gradual centralisation of the electoral roll database happened while SIR was gathering pace. The report said that the Election Commissioners - Sandhu and Joshi - have noted the complaints of election officials that they don’t have proper and complete access to the ERONet portal, the digital system through which they maintain the electoral roll. They demanded steps to ensure that statutory authorities (EROs) have the complete access and freedom to maintain the electoral roll.
The IE report said that the two ECs even wrote to Cabinet secretary TV Somananthan flagging issues over the centralisation of electoral roll databases and ECINet, successor of ERONet, restricting powers of officers on ground. The move came after a decision on work allocation related to IT files was taken without the knowledge of two Commissioners.
Who filed the appeals?
Another dispute was related to the SIR in West Bengal where appeals were filed by the EC against voters added by the judicial officers. Tribunals of retired High Court judges were tasked by the Supreme Court to hear appeals against voter deletions in West Bengal. Around 16.10 lakh appeals were filed by EC against voters added by the judicial officers. The IE report said that neither the election commissioners nor the Chief Electoral Officer of West Bengal had been informed of the basis or process of filing the appeals.
Other concerns raised by the Election Commissioners were related to the restoration of 97 eligible voters in the electoral roll of Goa. Though the EROs made several requests to the ECI’s IT wing, it couldn't be done because the software did not have an option to restore the voters.
As per rule, Chief Election Commissioner and two Election Commissioners are equal in rank and all business of the Commission should be transacted unanimously. If there is a difference in opinion, a decision shall be made based on the opinion of the majority.
In a press statement issued following the report, the Election Commission said that differing views and observations were a normal part of a deliberation in any institution and that all decisions were unanimous in the past one year. It noted that ECINet was operating under strict data security protocols to prevent unauthorised tampering, manipulations etc. The statement, however, did not deny any of the developments mentioned in the report.