Poll panel decisions should inspire public confidence

Some news stories keep reappearing in the media, usually to the government’s chagrin; the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is one of them. With over 13 crore names struck off the electoral rolls, it continues to spark controversy, the latest arising from a report in a national English daily, which contended that two of the three Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, had raised questions about the exercise. “The national rollout of the SIR has been under the supervision of all three Commissioners. But Sandhu and Joshi have formally objected, on record, at least 14 times over the last 10 months—four times on a single day—to decisions taken and orders issued, without their knowledge,” the report said. These objections, it said, pertained to: new voter registration, deletion, and restoration of voters in the rolls; filing of appeals against orders restoring voters in the SIR process; and the custody and security of the entire electoral roll itself. “All objections related to these were copied to Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, too. Some were sent to Deputy Election Commissioners under their watch.”

To be sure, he cannot be accused of unilaterally running the poll panel, given that the two commissioners could have vetoed him had they wanted to; all commissioners are equal in rank, the CEC being the first among equals; the CEC cannot overrule the other Commissioners; decisions are taken by majority. Unnamed sources point out that the two Commissioners never filed a dissent. An official familiar with the matter was reported in the media: “All decisions of the Election Commission of India, including SIR, have been unanimous and with the approval of both the election commissioners and the chief election commissioner.” Therefore, technically, the CEC hasn’t done anything wrong. Yet, these findings darken the cloud under which Kumar has come since being appointed as the CEC. The Opposition has been targeting him as a partisan of the government. This is very unfortunate, as the ECI is a constitutional authority, and it has largely been beyond political accusations. Come to think of it: even after the Emergency, during which the Indira Gandhi government undermined institutions, no one criticised the poll panel for being unfair. Because it was not. But it is not being accused of being a tool of the government.

This situation is not acceptable. The ECI’s credibility depends not merely on the formal legality of its decisions, but also on public confidence that those decisions are taken transparently, collectively, and independently. When two Commissioners repeatedly record objections to important decisions, even while ultimately allowing them to pass without formal dissent, it raises legitimate questions about how the institution is functioning internally. The issue, therefore, is larger than whether the CEC has technically violated any rule. Constitutional institutions cannot afford to operate in ways that create an impression of opacity or internal disagreement, particularly in critical matters like the revision of electoral rolls. The ECI must recognise that its greatest asset is public trust and that trust, once eroded, is difficult to restore. The Commission should therefore place all relevant procedures, objections and decisions in the public domain, so that citizens can judge its functioning for themselves.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

The Hans India