AA Edit | EC Shouldn’t Fight Shy Of Tackling Systemic Issues

The Election Commission of India is in denial. It is facing allegations by Congress MP and Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi that there has been massive fraud in the Indian electoral rolls. Mr Gandhi also accused the BJP of stealing elections in connivance with a compliant CEC. But the EC has chosen to answer him with a deathly silence. This hardly behoves the august body. And, too, the entry of the BJP into the debate demanding that Mr Gandhi resign if he has no faith in the system is clearly an attempt to shoot the messenger.

Well, not silence, exactly. But days passed since Mr Gandhi had raised the issue before the poll body responded, indicating that Mr Gandhi sign a declaration under Rule 20(3)(b) of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. Only then would it consider taking a serious look at his grievances. Before examining the poll body’s specious logic, one might, however, wonder whether it had insisted on such a declaration while responding to Mr Gandhi’s earlier allegations, including those against the electronic voting machines. The EC had then promptly denied the occurrence of any problems in the operation of the EVMs. It never ever bothered to seek a signed declaration.

This time, too, the EC has denying Mr Gandhi’s allegation about one particular voter having his name on the voters’ list in three states. And their latest move is the Karnataka chief electoral officer sending Mr Gandhi a notice demanding that he produce the relevant documents to prove his allegation that a particular voter has voted twice in the election in Mahadevpura. All, without a signed declaration.

If the EC were to go strictly by rules, then it needs to entertain a complaint only if it is lodged “within a period of 30 days from the date of publication of the roll”. It can very well state that Mr Gandhi has exceeded that time limit and hence it is not bound to consider it, but it has not done so. It does not suit the high constitutional body to cherry-pick its logic and while responding to serious allegations against it.

The EC had quoted the Constitution and the Representation of the People’s Act to press for the special intensive revision of the electoral roll in Bihar, the idea being to ensure that only bona fide voters make it to the electoral rolls. None should have a problem with the position; and the Supreme Court in fact endorsed it. Mr Gandhi also makes a similar demand: Probe the discrepancies on the list, yet the poll body invents reasons not to act on it.

Mr Gandhi holds a statutory position, that of the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and is making a grave allegation questioning the very process for which the EC is the sole proprietor in this country. The substance of his allegation is that there was massive fraud on the voters’ lists and he has demonstrated before the nation that this was true in at least one constituency. It is the basic minimum responsibility of the EC to be proactive and investigate his assertions. If it can prove Mr Gandhi wrong, then it can continue to claim credit for running the world’s largest electoral process immaculately. But if Mr Gandhi is right, then it can still go ahead with the process fixing the problem. Trying to evade it citing technical or legal points does to add to the glory of its office.