AA Edit | Lakhs of Indians Failed By EC In Bengal SIR

The Election Commission’s decision to go ahead with the publication of the final list of electors in West Bengal keeping about 27 lakh more voters out of the list of names “under adjudication” resulting in the shrinking of the original 7.66 crore-strong original roll by about 12 per cent in a hurriedly conducted process called special intensive revision of the electoral roll turns the very ideals of democracy on its head, and hence casts the stated motive of the process in a suspicious light. It calls for the urgent intervention of the President of India, an office mandated to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, and the Supreme Court of India, the official interpreter of the Constitution and the defender of the fundamental rights, so that the sanctity of the electoral process in the country may be restored.

Article 326 of the Constitution provides that “elections to the House of the People and to the Legislative Assemblies of states” are conducted “on the basis of adult suffrage”. It explains that every person who is a citizen of India and who is not less than 18 years of age, with certain exceptions, shall be entitled to be registered as a voter. Article 324 (1) of the Constitution vests the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls for the elections to the state Assemblies and Parliament with the Election Commission (EC).

The EC, however, has posed a serious question about the very idea of universal adult franchise when it stripped citizens of their right to vote for no fault of theirs, thereby denying them an opportunity to stand for and vote in the elections to the state Assembly being held this month.

The impossible deadlines the EC has put for the SIR is also suspicious. The EC came out with a draft electoral roll on February 28 after excising about 92 lakh names even as it raced to meet the election schedule for April-May. About 60 lakh people registered their objections to them being dropped out of the list under a specious term called “logical discrepancy”. The Supreme Court which heard petitions against the elimination of names on account of “logical discrepancies” was not impressed by the EC’s arguments and noted that there is a disconnect between the Indian realities and the EC’s position. The apex court, however, allowed the poll panel to go ahead with the process.

Curiously, the court became part of the process guiding the EC on meeting the deadlines by making the services of judicial officers available for a rather routine administrative process. This has indeed helped the EC process the complaints against the deletions. However, the 27 lakh people from the “under adjudication” list who have a right to go in appeal against the electoral registration officers are left out, unable to find a place on the electoral roll.

It will be a charade of the worst kind if the EC goes ahead with the elections to the state Assembly without settling the claims of the people who are waiting with their complaints before the appellate authority. The burden of proof must be on the EC if it were to remove a citizen from the electoral roll, and not otherwise. Asking the citizen why they should be retained is denial of natural justice and constitutional mandates. The President and the Supreme Court must intervene and ensure that the constitutional right of every single Indian citizen to vote is not denied because the poll panel was unable to do its job in a professional manner.