The functioning of the three-member Election Commission of India (ECI) has once again come under close scrutiny, after an expose by The Indian Express that two Election Commissioners (ECs) – Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi – had placed their objections on record at least 14 times in the last 10 months. Their complaints covered several issues, including the addition and deletion of voters, arbitrary changes in how this was being done, access to the electoral database and the functioning of the commission’s own IT system, the ECINet, which controls the systems through which the electoral roll is maintained. The commission first responded by saying that the decisions taken by it have been unanimous and that ‘observations’ were a part of the deliberative process. But since the ‘observations’ related to the controversial Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls being conducted nationwide, the Opposition smelt a rat, accusing Gyanesh Kumar, Chief Election Commissioner (CEC), of presiding over a machinery that deleted the names of tens of millions of voters in the guise of weeding out bogus voters – a move meant to help the ruling BJP win elections.
The Opposition’s grouse is that a significant section of the 130 million people disenfranchised by SIR belong to the marginalised communities, including Muslim minorities and Dalits, who have traditionally backed them. Recent elections based on revised lists had affected the electoral process and possibly the poll outcomes.
The controversy stoked misgivings about the sanctity of the electoral process as all evidence points to the SIT being procedurally faulty. Under fire, the CEC was forced to call a meeting of the poll panel after three days to address some of the concerns raised by his two colleagues. The outcome, among other things, was a review of the ECINet, exemption from in-person hearings for hundreds of thousands of electors who were issued notices, more transparency in the commission meetings and strict adherence to directions issued by the commissioners to officers, who were till now probably reporting only to the CEC. The sharp turn signalled how deep the disquiet inside the commission had become and how far it had travelled outside. The move did nothing to quell the demand for a total revamp of the ECI as an institution.
More than anything else, the latest episode highlighted the need for more transparency about the commission’s functioning. The Election Commission derives its powers from Article 324 of the Constitution, which provides for a commission for the ‘superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls for and the conduct of all elections to Parliament and to the legislatures of every state and of elections to the offices of the President and the Vice-President’. How the ECI is supposed to arrive at decisions is laid out in the CEC and Other ECs (appointment, conditions of service and terms of office) Act, 2023, which says: “The Election Commission may, by unanimous decision, regulate the procedure for transaction of its business and also allocation of its business amongst the CEC and other ECs. All business of the Election Commission shall, as far as possible, be transacted unanimously and, if the CEC and other ECs differ in opinion on any matter, such matter shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority.” There is nothing in the act which says that business transacted by the Commission shall remain secret and confidential.
Since the EC has three members, all three have one vote each. One wonders why the two ECs, who have raised objections, did not press for a vote. Were they told not to do so?
Differences within the commission are not something that is new. Ever since it was permanently expanded from a single-member body to a three-member commission in 1993, there have been differences among the individuals who occupy the posts – be it in the conduct of elections or administrative matters. However, when it came to finally taking a decision, the commission took a call unanimously or by majority. In case an Election Commissioner disagreed with the majority view, he or she could record a dissent note on the file. Ashok Lavasa, former EC, had done exactly that in 2019, when he disagreed with the majority view of giving Prime Minister Narendra Modi and then BJP chief Amit Shah a clean chit on complaints of Model Code of Conduct violations before the commission.
The ruling BJP has lost no time in downplaying the latest furore, leaving one wondering how a political party can be a PR outfit for a constitutional body. But with some allies of the ruling NDA also airing their misgivings, it was in the interest of the government and CEC to bring some sort of clarity to the latest development. But another chapter can open soon if the commission continues to push the government’s agenda.