“Without delving into the particulars of the formal objections reported by the newspaper, the ECI claims, “All actions of ECI have been in accordance of laws and instructions of the Commission.”
In its response to the investigation by The Indian Express revealing that two of three Election Commissioners objected formally at least 14 times on various decisions taken and orders issued without their knowledge in the last 10 months, the Election Commission has appeared to duck the most important concerns – not least of which is what happens to the 13 crore names deleted as part of the ECI’s special intensive revision of voter rolls.
As the Indian Express report notes, the controversial national rollout of the SIR has been under the supervision of all three Commissioners. Now, with the reported disagreement of Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi to some of the decisions made in the course of the SIR, there are serious worries over the legitimacy of the already fraught exercise.
In its press note, the ECI has repeated that it a constitutional body that functions under the strict mandate of Article 324 of the Constitution, statutory rules and established institutional conventions.
Noting that the Commission operates as a “multi-member constitutional body,” it claims that “written notes, observations, technical suggestions and internal checks-and-balances are standard, ongoing practices designed to ensure complete transparency, legal compliance and operational rigour.”
Without delving into the particulars of the formal objections reported by the newspaper, the ECI claims then, “All actions of ECI have been in accordance of laws and instructions of the Commission.”
The ECI also announces:
“All official orders, decisions and administrative directions issued by the Commission carry full legal sanctions and follow established statutory procedures under The Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.”
However, the ECI’s “legal sanctions” assurance falls flat against the gravity of the situation raised by the reports – that two out of three Election Commissioners in a three-member body complained about being kept in the dark when it came to the adding new voters and the deleting of names.
The two have also expressed formal concerns over integrity of voter software and raised the issue of a centralised voter database that bypasses state officials.
The ECI’s response makes light of this concern and puts them under the umbrella of ‘operational queries or inputs,’ saying:
“Any operational queries or inputs raised by Commission members during draft stages are part of standard administrative practice aimed at safeguarding voter rights. The suggestions given by the Commissioners were for further improving the electoral processes.”
It then adds:
“Differing views and observations are a normal part of deliberation in any institution. They are a part of the decision-making process before a final decision is taken. Not only the three Commissioners, but every officer of the Commission is fully authorized to give his suggestions to the Commission for improving the electoral system.”
However, the reports make it amply clear that the Election Commissioners’ objections were not “suggestions,” but full-fledged formal complaints. In one, Sandhu notes that the EC acted against the written advice of two commissioners and claim its action was “unauthorised and illegal.” Sandhu and Joshi also, the report says, wrote separately to the Cabinet Secretary complaining about changes in work allocation that did away with crucial oversight despite their advice against it.
In a leap of whataboutery, the ECI further claimed
“Highlighting certain specific internal notes/observations spread over the period of 10 months while overlooking the much larger body of approvals, decisions, instructions and initiatives give only one part of the picture. In recent months, the Commission has taken numerous decisions, issued instructions, introduced around 40 new initiatives and undertaken many electoral reforms including the conduct of Electoral roll revision (including SIR) across the country. All these decisions are an outcome of the unanimous decisions of the full Commission in the past one year.”
Notwithstanding the fact that some communication transcended the meaning of “internal” – like the complaint to the Cabinet Secretary as illustrated above – it is unclear why the gravity of 14 objections in 10 months should reduce under the weight of the allegedly much larger body of approvals.
“The Commission has recently successfully conducted major elections of Bihar, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, Assam and West Bengal and election-related exercises during this period. This work involved wide-ranging administrative and operational machinery and many Commission approvals and instructions.”
The contentious deletions in some of these states, especially West Bengal, is being heard by the courts and the impact they have had on people’s ability to access public welfare is well reported. The Election Commission’s description of these SIRs as “successful” raises questions on its awareness of the issues and lives at stake.
Ostensibly in response to the report that notes the Election Commissioners’ reservations against a central database, the ECI says:
The Commission’s digital platforms, such as ECINet, operate under strict data security protocols to prevent unauthorized tampering, manipulation, etc. IT security checks and audit controls are standard cybersecurity measures implemented across national databases. Statutory authorities, including Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) and District Election Officers (DEOs), function as per statutory powers for registration and deletion under law.
The press note, signed by P. Pawan, a deputy director in the Media Division of the ECI, finishes with the line:
“Election Commission of India remains fully committed to executing its constitutional duties with complete integrity, recognizing its vital role in advancing our democracy.”
Also Read: Who Is Gyanesh Kumar, The One-Man Election Commission Acting In Violation Of Article 324?
