The Election Commission of India (ECI)’s affidavit filed in the Supreme Court on October 26 raises more questions than it answers about the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and the functioning of the Commission. While it maintains that the SIR and its procedural alterations are within the ECI’s constitutional remit and that the Commission’s decisions were unanimous, these claims are not borne out by the facts now public. The Commission cites honourable intentions, but intent must be supported by practice and procedure. There is no dispute on the ECI’s constitutional powers, but their exercise points to an unconstitutional intent. The affidavit notes that the objections recorded by two of the three Election Commissioners – Vivek Joshi and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu – were part of a consultative process.

It does not counter the point that most objections concerned decisions taken without keeping the two commissioners informed. Given that these objections are on record, the decisions cannot be termed collective or unanimous. In the affidavit, the ECI says the additional declaration it prescribed for Form 6 was a separate document, not a modification of the requirements under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. But it agrees that the way it appeared online “could be construed as though an amendment of Form 6 had been made” and that “certain steps taken by the officers” had “to be corrected”.

This position contradicts an earlier statement that the declaration was “upheld” by the Supreme Court and validates the charge of modification. The additional document amounts to an amendment enforced by the Commission. Regarding West Bengal, the ECI admits that the state Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) filed 1.6 million appeals before judicial tribunals against the inclusion of voters. But it does not answer the question: Who authorised these appeals? Failed attempts by Electoral Registration Officers in Goa to reverse the deletion of some voters also remain unexplained.

The claims made in the affidavit need supporting evidence. Some of them contradict available facts. The apex court should test the affidavit for the veracity of its assertions with documents, file notings, and minutes of the Commission’s meetings and consultations. It should not accept the affidavit at face value, as the ECI has in the past made unverified claims. The Court has given time to the Opposition parties and other petitioners to file their rejoinders. It has done well to promise that it will closely examine all charges and the Commission’s response. (Source: DH)