The gross irregularities and undemocratic nature of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls demand accountability beyond mere course corrections. Media revelations have forced the Election Commission of India (ECI) to come out with explanations in its defence and take a few corrective steps. But the explanations do not justify the errors, primarily because these were not lapses that occurred in the normal course of implementing a national-scale programme involving many millions of people. These were predetermined actions intended to take the exercise in a particular direction and lead to an undemocratic outcome. The corrective measures do not neutralise the wrongs but only confirm them and strengthen the demand to establish greater accountability. The fundamental wrong of the SIR is more than the sum of all the individual wrongs exposed as part of its operation.

The ECI has ordered a special drive for the enrolment of voters left out and of young and first-time eligible voters in states and Union Territories where the revision has been completed. Form 6, prescribed for the registration of new voters, was illegally altered, as pointed out by Election Commissioner Sukhbir Singh Sandhu. This alteration had consequences, denying a large number of citizens their voting rights. Relaxation or cancellation of a wrong decision does not absolve an authority of its accountability for that decision, especially when the authority stuck to the decision even after the illegality was pointed out by a responsible official. The official in this case should also have had a role in the decision. The same is the case with the operationalisation of a software that took away the power of state-level officers to decide on the eligibility of voters and the appeals made in West Bengal against the inclusion of over 16 lakh voters in the rolls.

Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar took these and other crucial decisions without the concurrence of the two other election commissioners. That makes these decisions procedurally wrong, too, apart from being undemocratic in intent. This should render every action based on these decisions null and void. Kumar should be held accountable for the trauma and difficulties caused to millions of voters and the wastage of financial, material, and human resources in the exercise. Notably, the Commission has not addressed the nation on the controversy even in the face of credible evidence that its actions conflicted with its constitutional mandate and the essential principles of India’s electoral democracy. (Source: DH)