Two activists who have worked on voter inclusion and SIR explain the implication of two election commissioners raising issues with multiple aspects of the preparation of new voter rolls

Even as Special Intensive Revisions (SIRs) were being carried out in the country, two Election Commissioners kept flagging various issues linked to the process. An investigation by The Indian Express has flagged how Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi raised objections around: A centralised software system that prevented local election authorities from modifying voter rolls. The two election commissioners repeatedly pointed out that centralised control over voter rolls went against the Election Commission’s own promise decentralisation and transparency.

Asking prospective new voters, when they filed Form 6, whether their parents featured in 2002 voter rolls. When the two election commissioners demanded that this question be removed, their notes were ignored.

Appeals being filed against the inclusion of names in voter rolls. When the two election commissioners asked who authorised filing of these appeals, they got no answers.

While the Election Commission, reacting to the Express investigation, said “differing views and observations are a normal part of deliberation in any institution,” it did not answer any of the specific questions raised in the investigation. TOI+ spoke with two activists who are involved in attempts to bring greater transparency to the SIR process - Maj Gen (retd) Anil Verma, who heads the Association of Democratic Reforms (ADR); and Nikhil Dey, who works with the grassroots social movement Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan - and asked them how the revelations made in The Indian Express report impact the credibility of the Election Commission and the SIR exercise. ‘Dissent notes not enough’ Maj Gen (retd) Anil Verma said the two election commissioners’ dissent notes weren’t enough and that they could have been done more. Given the two election commissioners had the same voting power as the chief election commissioner, they could have done more to halt processes they had issues with, he said. ADR had challenged the constitutionality of the SIR process before the Supreme Court, but the apex court upheld the process. “If the two election commissioners felt strongly, they could have called for a formal meeting of the full commission and moved a resolution…they should have insisted on formal decision-making instead of just allowing their objections to remain as internal notes,” he said. Verma, however, said that if the two commissioners had raised objections and they weren’t acted upon, it reflects poorly on the way the Election Commission is functioning. “It raises questions about transparency, decision-making and the credibility of the institution,” he said. Nikhil Dey said the objections raised by the commissioners were very serious and shouldn’t have been ignored.

Echoing Verma’s views that the election commissioners could have done more, he said that if there was dissent it should have been in the public domain. Election Commission’s statement does not answer anything Both said that the Election Commission’s statement on the issue didn’t really answer anything. “If dissent is encouraged, as the statement suggests, why are those dissenting views not in the public domain? Why does the Election Commission not share details of such a massive exercise affecting so many voters?” asked Dey. “If the commission says consensus was reached, then let the two commissioners say: ‘Yes, we raised objections, but we were wrong and the Chief Election Commissioner was right’. Until then, these remain serious questions,” Dey said.Verma said the Election Commission’s statement was in keeping with the body’s history of opacity. He said the commission did not reply to questions sent through Right to Information (RTI) requests, letters or emails. “We are citizens and voters of this country. They cannot ignore queries being raised.”

‘Scrap the SIR

Dey said that given the issues with nearly every major aspect of the SIR it needed to be scrapped. “We should go back to the last frozen electoral rolls — the 2025 rolls, or whichever was the last valid roll before this exercise,” he said. After restoring the earlier rolls, there should be a proper public verification process in which Booth Level Officers make proper house-to-house visits and there is a public hearing on the deletion of voters, as per the commission’s manual, Dey said. “The most vulnerable people in the country are the most scared. They are the least equipped to find why their names have been left out of electoral rolls,” he said.

Verma pointed out that the verification of voters has become a “machinegenerated process” under the SIR. “The human interface has vanished. Unless there is a human interface, how do you determine whether a person is actually a voter or not?” he said. The centralisation of voter roll modification One of the major issues flagged by the two election commissioners was the fact that Electoral Registration Officers (ERO), responsible for preparation and revision of electoral rolls of a constituency, couldn’t modify the rolls at their level. One of the election commissioners had flagged the fact that district-level officials had complained repeatedly about not getting complete and proper access to electoral rolls.

Verma said the issue was not a small procedural one. “It affects the rights of voters and the functioning of the electoral roll process,” he said. He said that during the West Bengal elections earlier this year multiple reports had flagged that people were just not being heard when it came to getting their names added to the voter rolls. Dey said decisions were being shaped by centrally-generated voter lists and that Electoral Registration Officers were clearly not sufficiently involved in the process. “The entire logical discrepancy clause has come from a top-down, machinedriven process and centralised lists,” he says. “We don’t know which lists are being run against one another, but they are certainly not lists with the ERO.” The issue with linking Form 6 and 2002 rolls Form 6 are used to apply for inclusion in an electoral roll. Beginning in July, new applicants were required to state whether they, their parents or their grandparents “exist” in the “electoral roll of the last SIR”. Applicants could not submit the online form without answering. According to The Indian Express, Joshi had warned in May that Form 6 could not be changed unless the government first amended the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. Sandhu agreed. The forms, however, were neither withdrawn nor amended. In August, Sandhu put it on record that the addition of the question was “unauthorised and illegal” and “must be withdrawn immediately”. But the forms remained unchanged until September 21.

“The way Form 6 has been amended is wrong. It is absolutely wrong and illegal”: Former Dey said that issues raised by the commissioners about the form were very valid. “People who have voter IDs, and have voted many times, are being asked to fill Form 6, which is meant for new voters. It contains a declaration that the applicant is applying as a voter for the first time. It also warns that a false declaration can attract punishment,” he said. “How can an existing voter, who may have voted in 10 elections, be asked to say they are applying for the first time? You are effectively forcing people to lie under declaration,” Dey said. ADR’s Verma said there was also no evidence that filing the form guaranteed inclusion in voter rolls. He said one’s application could be rejected if the system depended on mapping with old voter records or other criteria. “This is why the process must be transparent. People must know why they were deleted and what they need to do to be restored,” he said. The targeted exclusion of names In West Bengal, the SIR became the subject of prolonged litigation. In February, the Supreme Court directed judicial officers to examine the cases of about 60 lakh voters flagged for what the Election Commission called “logical discrepancies”. These could include differences in names or age gaps that did not appear consistent with the relatives to whom voters’ records were linked. Around 27 lakh names were subsequently deleted by the Election Commission. The court then set up tribunals headed by retired high court judges to consider appeals. Last week, the Election Commission told the Supreme Court that 38.31 lakh appeals had been filed. Of these, 22.21 lakh were by deleted voters seeking reinstatement. Surprisingly, the other 16.10 lakh challenged the inclusion of voters retained by the judicial officers. The Commission did not clearly identify who had filed the second category of appeals. In August, Sandhu wrote to Commission officials asking, “Who was authorised to file these appeals on behalf of ECI, and by whom?” and “who actually filed these appeals on behalf of ECI?”, the newspaper reported. He said neither he nor Joshi nor the serving West Bengal chief electoral officer had been informed about the authority or process under which the appeals were filed.

Verma said the issue of targeted exclusion of voters had been an issue since the start of the SIR and there were cases where applications for excluding individuals were filed in bulk by political workers. “What business did those people have to give these bulk applications and why were those being accepted?” he said, adding that it’s not clear adequate due diligence was carried out before cutting voters out of the list. Dey said that the secretive manner in which deletions were made did not help and it should have been done in public hearings for greater accountability. “The primary duty of the political party is they go and ask for votes. They must ensure every voter, whether it’s their voter or not, comes on the rolls,” he said. Verma said the objections raised by the two Election Commissioners implied that the appeals were filed in the name of the Election Commission. “But the exact position needs to be clarified. If the commission is filing appeals, then people need to know the basis. If someone else is doing it, that also needs to be disclosed,” he said.