A question of independence

The Election Commission urgently needs internal reform

The institution that facilitates the functioning of Indian democracy at its grassroots appears to be operating in an undemocratic and, in some cases, extra-legal manner. A detailed investigation by The Indian Express has revealed that public misgivings about the veracity of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise were being echoed within the Election Commission of India (ECI). Two of the three Election Commissioners (ECs) have complained about being kept uninformed by the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar on significant steps — enrolling new voters, deleting names, the centralised nature of the voter database, and the integrity of the software itself. On the latter issue, the dissenting ECs — Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi — even took their complaints to the Cabinet Secretary. Overall, reports show that they placed their objections on record, including to the CEC, at least 14 times in the last 10 months. Under the law, the three ECs have equal powers. Though the CEC is “first among equals”, she or he cannot make unilateral decisions.

 

The latest exercise, which began in June  last year in Bihar, has struck 130 million names off the rolls. The two dissenting ECs, in the process, pointed to several anomalies that had made exclusion rather than inclusion the norm. One is a new provision in Form 6, which registers new voters. It requires applicants to specify if their parents or grandparents existed on earlier rolls. Applicants cannot progress without filling in this information. Both ECs warned that this provision could not be introduced without the government amending the relevant rules, but the change went ahead regardless. No less egregious has been the centralisation of the electoral-roll database, undermining access by the electoral registration officer (ERO), a statutory authority and an important mechanism in maintaining the sanctity of the rolls. The centralised software has often overridden the ERO’s decisions, blocking eligible voters, with the Information-Technology Director General given the authority to restrict ERO access. These software issues have led, among other things, to the disenfranchisement of eligible voters. Messrs Sandhu and Joshi also questioned the veracity of appeals for deleting eligible voters. Indeed, earlier this month, booth-level officers in Jharkhand raised the red flag over voter-deletion requests. Nowhere is the irregular nature of the SIR exercise more evident than in West Bengal, where the voter roll shrank by about 12 per cent. Of the 3.8 million appeals before Supreme Court-ordered appellate tribunals, 126,194 appeals have been decided in the past five months. At this rate of case disposal, it will take 12 years to clear all cases.

 

At the heart of the issue is the question of institutional independence, which in turn is linked to the mechanism of appointing ECs. The Supreme Court had suggested a three-member committee of the Prime Minister, Chief Justice of India (CJI), and Leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha. But the law replaced the CJI with a Cabinet minister nominated by the Prime Minister, tipping the balance in favour of the government. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition’s objection to at least two EC appointments was overruled in this manner. Now a two-judge Bench hearing challenges to the ECI appointment law has recommended that a larger Bench hear the issue. Till then, the government urgently needs to ensure that the invisible guardrails of democracy are not weakened from within.