Politics over the SIR (Special Intensive Revision) of electoral rolls is becoming increasingly bitter. The Congress has stepped up its attack on the ECI (Election Commission of India) and Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, while the INDIA bloc is preparing to coordinate its response. Members of the INDIA bloc also held a strategic meeting on the same issue in New Delhi on September 30.
Both ECI and SIR processes are also under legal scrutiny with the top courts questioning its functioning recently. On September 28, the Calcutta High Court pulled up EC over its handling of a party poll symbol dispute between two factions of Trinamool Congress, and went on to suggest ‘connivance' between the poll panel and one of the disputing parties.
Next day (September 29), the Supreme Court agreed to take up a petition questioning CEC's functioning and seeking to declare SIR illegal.
Meanwhile, BJP has accused Congress for targeting ECI, with party leaders stating that Congress should be introspecting its defeats.
It would be good for the Centre to come clean on SIR and the CEC's reported conduct and restore peoples' faith in the electoral process.
Restoring public trust
Mitigating the controversy to yet another Congress-versus-BJP clash misses the larger issue. Electoral rolls belong to citizens, not political parties. The EC is a constitutional institution, not an arm of either the government or the opposition. If doubts about the SIR process are allowed to persist, the damage will extend beyond any one election or political party. It will affect public confidence in the electoral system itself.
That is why the Centre's response cannot simply be to dismiss every criticism as political opportunism.
The EC is constitutionally independent, so the Centre cannot and must not dictate how the commission conducts an electoral-roll revision. But the Centre can do something equally important- make its own position completely transparent, cooperate fully with judicial scrutiny and demonstrate that there is nothing to conceal.
The matters in courts are allegations, not judicial findings, and the Supreme Court has yet to adjudicate them while Calcutta HC has reserved its order. Yet the fact that such questions have reached the country's highest courts should itself encourage greater disclosure. In an atmosphere of suspicion, all the stakeholders must demonstrate why those decisions were made.
The same principle should apply to SIR.
If names have been removed, citizens should know why. If a voter is flagged for verification, there should be a clear, accessible mechanism to establish eligibility. If political parties have raised objections, the data and methodology necessary to examine those objections should be made available within the limits of privacy and election law. If there have been errors, they should be acknowledged and corrected promptly.
Transparency should not be treated as a concession to the Opposition. It is a protection for the EC itself.
The EC has already ordered a review of voter-roll changes and announced steps involving its software and verification procedures after concerns were raised about the process. The commission has already said that internal disagreements were part of its functioning and that it would examine whether the voter-roll software complied with legal requirements.
That is precisely the direction in which the institution should move- audit, disclose, correct and explain.
Constitutional bodies are above politics
The Centre, meanwhile, should resist the temptation to make this a purely political defence of the EC. The BJP's argument that the Congress should introspect over its defeats is a legitimate political response, but it does not answer questions about electoral administration. A party can lose an election and still raise a valid institutional question. Conversely, an allegation made by an Opposition party does not automatically become true merely because it concerns an important democratic issue.
The answer lies in evidence.
The government can therefore help restore confidence by supporting independent audits, making relevant SIR methodology and aggregate data publicly accessible, ensuring that affected voters receive notice and meaningful opportunities for correction or appeal, and facilitating judicial and parliamentary scrutiny wherever legally appropriate.
Most importantly, the EC itself must communicate directly with citizens. Technical explanations released after controversies erupt are not enough. The commission should proactively explain the legal basis of SIR, the criteria being applied, the safeguards against wrongful deletion and the mechanisms available to voters who believe they have been wrongly excluded.
The CEC's conduct, too, should be addressed through institutions rather than political rhetoric. If allegations about unilateral decision-making are incorrect, the commission should place the relevant decision-making record in the public domain wherever legally permissible. If there are genuine procedural questions, they should be examined independently. The Supreme Court's forthcoming proceedings will provide an important constitutional forum for these questions.
India's electoral democracy does not depend merely on conducting elections on schedule. It depends on citizens believing that the voter list is accurate, that competing political parties are treated according to the same rules, and that the referee is independent and accountable
The Centre therefore need not and should not try to politically ‘defend' every action of the EC. Its responsibility is more fundamental- ensure that the institutions of democracy have the space, information and legal processes necessary to establish the facts.
The Opposition, too, has a responsibility to distinguish evidence from allegation. The government has a responsibility to distinguish institutional independence from institutional opacity.
SIR should ultimately be judged not by which political party benefits from it, but by whether every eligible citizen can confidently establish their right to vote.
That is the real test which matters. And the best way to meet it is not louder political rhetoric, but more accessibility, more information, more scrutiny and more transparency.
(The author is a Contributing Editor, NDTV)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author
