PIL seeks judicial review of SIR process and accountability over electoral roll changes
The decision of the Supreme Court of India to hear a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a review of the functioning of the Election Commission of India (ECI) with respect to the conduct of the special intensive revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls across the country and to suspend the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar if he is found to have been violating the relevant laws is an important milestone in the history of both constitutional institutions. The PIL, which the court has agreed to consider next week, also calls for the constitution of an inquiry commission headed by a former judge of the apex court or a special investigation team to affix responsibility for wrongdoings.
It matters less as to what could be the outcome of the hearing, given that the demand for the suspension of the CEC or for the formation of a committee to investigate the actions of the ECI by the SC has no constitutional sanction. However, a judicial review of a process which has gone hopelessly awry under CEC Kumar can help restore the credibility of the institution and of the larger democratic practices in the country.
The petitioner has a point when he quotes the recent newspaper reports about the two election commissioners differing with the CEC on the SIR. As per Section 17 (2) of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, “all business of the Election Commission shall, as far as possible, be transacted unanimously, and if the chief election commissioner and other election commissioners differ in opinion on any matter, such matter shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority”.
If one were to go by the reports which have not been refuted point by point, it is obvious that the EC has functioned outside the mandate of the law. And the results are there for all to see: In a country that has 96 crore voters, 13 crores, about 15 per cent, have been struck off the electoral rolls! Such a purging exercise must have a logical and legal line of reasoning but the ECI has not come out with one yet. Lakhs of people are still waiting outside the court-appointed tribunals seeking re-entry into the list as they have been felled to a newly invented weapon called “logical discrepancy”. Hence this is a fit case for the apex court to ponder on.
The political process that has now started in the country seeking answers from the ECI, however, should not wait for the judicial system to come to its aid. It is not for the first time that the ECI’s weird decisions on SIR have been brought to the notice of the court, yet it has offered no succour to the harried petitioners so far. The court even looked the other way when elections to state Assemblies were conducted based on the redacted voter lists, despite being requested to conduct them based on the old rolls. While it can indeed step in now, in a limited fashion, the struggle to clean up the mess the present ECI has created must go on, irrespective of the outcome of the PIL.
