The BJP appears to be clueless as to how to handle the people’s fury and the Opposition’s mega rally at Ramlila Maidan in Delhi on 1 November against the illegal acts of the Election Commission headed by CEC Gyanesh Kumar. The EC has deleted over 13 crore voters and manipulated the electoral rolls during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR). Close on the heels of EC’s affidavit before the Supreme Court that is seemingly riddled with holes, Union Minister and former BJP chief JP Nadda spun a conspiracy theory against the Congress by giving a call for the rally, but did not use a single word on the raging controversy surrounding the CEC. He charged the Congress with destroying democracy by creating anarchy through mobilisation of protesters on Delhi streets leading to the rally today at Ramlila Maidan which supposedly harmed traders in Delhi during the festive season, forcing them to shut their business. He also alleged the Opposition of receiving foreign funds to derail the government. It may be interesting to note that all western nations, those that are supposedly interested in destabilising India, are nose-deep in trouble themselves with riots, strikes and mayhem all over Europe and the US. It is unbelievable that any western country has the time or resources currently to think of any other country, that too a country like India.
The EC’s affidavit sought to showcase unanimity among the Election Commissioners to counter revelations in the Indian Express‘s report last month that the two election commissioners, Vivek Joshi and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu, had objected 14 times, after decisions had been taken, in just ten months after the exercise was initiated. A close reading of the affidavit, however, shows it was virtually an admission of the wrongdoing of the CEC as revealed in the newspaper report.
Also Read
The affidavit insisted that merely one newspaper report is not treated as evidence in the eyes of law, but as if to corroborate the report, it says that the poll body has “neither released nor authorised the release of any internal note/file to any news agency”. It thereby admits to the existence of the internal note mentioned in the Express report.
On the crucial issue of changes made to the online Form 6 to virtually deprive a large number of youths of their right to become voters, the newspaper report revealed that the two election commissioners had objected to the changes, with Sandhu calling them “illegal”. The affidavit, while stating that the Form 6 was not changed, admits that the declaration was “entered into the online page” of the form.
Further, while the Indian Express report had noted that 97 eligible electors were left out of the rolls in Goa after the centralised ECINet software stopped state election officials from reversing the decision, the Election Commission affidavit does not dispute this either. Instead, it only says that 88 of these 97 voters have already re-applied through Form 6 for inclusion, which clearly is an admission of wrongdoing.
In the case of West Bengal, the report revealed that appeals against the inclusion of voters cleared by judicial officers had been filed by state election officials themselves without following the stipulated rules. This was a serious offense and the affidavit did not dispute it. It offered an evasive explanation that the “matters were not brought to the Commission” which only confirmed the offence had been committed.
The Election Commission’s affidavit details the laws and provisions governing how the poll body works, but significantly remains silent on the objections made by the two election commissioners. This is the main charge against the CEC who allegedly took all major decisions unilaterally keeping the two ECs in the dark and not changing them in the light of objections raised by the two. The law clearly stipulates that all EC decisions must have either the unanimous approval of all the three commissioners or endorsed by a majority of them, i.e. two members.
While denying that decisions were not taken in accordance with the law, the affidavit says that “in any decision-making process, suggestions, observations, varying views or queries by any official in the chain of command are taken into consideration for arriving at the decision by the competent authority.” However, the truth is the two ECs raised their objections after the CEC had taken the decisions himself.
The suspicion about wrongdoings by the CEC in the ongoing SIR is increasingly gaining ground among the populace. The Opposition is accusing him of being a puppet in the hands of the party in power. The sooner it exonerates itself of the charge with convincing evidence, the better it is for the health of Indian democracy. Or else, electoral process would be vitiated to the peril of the country’s democratic future.
