Two of the three election commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, objected to decisions made in the Election Commission of India (ECI)’s name without their knowledge, the Indian Express reported on Wednesday. The commissioners flagged concerns ranging from unilateral changes to voter registration forms and centralised control over IT systems to decisions on deletion and restoration of names. Because the software did not allow the update to be recorded, they cited a case in Goa as part of Special Intensive Revision (SIR) where 97 voters verified as eligible by ground officers could not be added to the rolls.
HT spoke to Ashok Lavasa, who, as an election commissioner in 2019, dissented publicly from the ECI’s exoneration of leaders accused of violating the model code of conduct, about the current crisis. Edited excerpts: The election commissioners have raised some very valid issues, which are legal in nature. The law prescribes one form, and we are using another form. So, with whose authority has this form been changed? They are also saying the procedure adopted is actually impeding the statutory powers of the ERO [Electoral Registration Officer]. So if these allegations are right, it is a very serious issue. But that does not take away what should not be taken away. There is authority invested in officers under law. So if I, as an ERO, hear somebody’s petition and find that, yes, this name should be deleted, or this name should be added, then I should be able to do it, no? I should not have to rely on someone, a third party, to delete it. If you were facing the kind of institutional situation, what mechanisms should an election commissioner use to ensure that their objections do not simply disappear into a file?
They are saying that Form 6 [requiring new voters to declare whether they, a parent, or a grandparent appeared on the “last SIR” roll] was changed without following due procedure.
