The Election Commission is in the news again, and for the same old reason: its own company. It has been reported this week that election commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi formally objected, on record, at least 14 times over the last ten months, four times on a single day, to decisions and orders issued, they said, without their knowledge, as the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls rolled out across the country.One objection from Sandhu described an action of the Commission as “unauthorised and illegal”.Eventually, the two wrote separately to the cabinet secretary. The Commission’s response: individual views of commissioners do not constitute decisions, and every decision, including on the SIR, was taken unanimously with the approval of all three members.Also read: When the umpires disagree – 10 questions at the heart of the Election Commission rowA rerun, then, of the TN Seshan versus MS Gill and GVG Krishnamurthy days? Only superficially.Those who don’t know their Election Commission history may be surprised at how fractious it has always been. Between 1993 and 1995, Seshan actually went to court to challenge the very creation of a multi-member Commission, locked in an open legal battle with fellow Commissioners Gill and Krishnamurthy.Why had the two been appointed at all? To check Seshan, who had the temerity not to let the system be hijacked by appointees with suspect motives.Then in 2009, chief election commissioner N Gopalaswami sought the removal of fellow commissioner Navin Chawla over alleged partisan conduct. The government rejected the recommendation, and Chawla went on to become CEC himself. And worth remembering, if only because it colours how we read that era: Gill, after his term, joined the Indian National Congress and was later made a Union minister. Those clashes were seeded by political appointments with a purpose.Also read: EC faultlines have a long history, dating back to 1989This one is different, and in a way, not many are pointing it out. All three members of the current Commission were appointed under the 2023 Act, picked by a selection panel dominated by the government. Nobody can accuse Sandhu and Joshi of being opposition plants.And their objections are not ideological; they are procedural — changes to Form 6 made without amending the rules, appeals filed on behalf of the Commission without the knowledge of the state’s chief electoral officer or the two Commissioners, a “gradual centralisation” of the electoral roll database, reallocation of work done in the dark.These are the objections of men who say they were kept out of decision-making, not of men out to sabotage an exercise.Also worth noting: 14 objections over 10 months, during a nationwide exercise covering crores of voters, is not unusual for an institution this size. The Commission has functioned as a multi-member body since 1993, with differences resolved by majority vote, exactly as the law provides.Also read: ‘Decision unanimous’ – EC counters report of internal differences over SIRInternal notes and disagreements are standard democratic processes inside a constitutional body. They are not evidence of illegality.On the SIR itself, let me be clear: it was needed, and I say this as someone who has been through it, not just read about it. The rolls need cleaning up. Too many who don’t deserve to be on them are there, and that corrupts the poll process too.For pushing through the agenda despite the howls, the CEC deserves kudos. When the powerful see their designs thwarted by a determined constitutional authority, they rave and rant. It’s expected, and normal.But the execution is another matter. In my own society, apparently all but five residents received the SIR notice — my entire family included. Friends and family in Lucknow, Patna, Bengaluru: every one of them received it too. Which tells you the sheer scale of the exercise — and that whatever is being done is being done mechanically, not deliberately.I was told I wouldn’t have to prove anything if I could show where I existed in the rolls of 2002.Although I was a voter then, I couldn’t locate my name in the list, which follows neither my voter ID number nor the alphabet.Also read: Opposition seeks CEC’s arrest, fresh polls in states; BJP lauds ‘pure democracy’So it was down to uploading documents online, getting an acknowledgement, and then meeting an officer at a local government school. That I am fine with. But at least five elderly neighbours called to say they had no idea how to upload documents, how to access the portal, how to deal with the usernames and passwords.How should they go about it? We deployed a local person to help them; whether that can happen across the country is a moot point.As it stands, the system cuts out a whole section of the population with almost no recourse for them. Even those adept at online systems get thwarted by its complexity — the number of times it throws up an error after hours of effort can put off anyone.Which means genuine voters get kept out. The EC must find a way to help such people too.To be fair, the Commission’s response to the stories has addressed some issues, and some of what it says holds merit. It has not directly answered the others. My own sense is that most of the points in those stories may well have explanations — but they are explanations the public needs to hear from the Commission, not merely infer.The media house that published the story will be panned for it as being biased. I won’t be judgmental about that, but if the report forces the EC to be more forthcoming, it will only help democracy.And let us not forget what this body has on its plate. Managing an electoral roll of this size, and elections of this magnitude, is a task perhaps no other body in the world can manage.It will naturally have people taking potshots at it, because the stricter it is, the tougher it gets for those who want to game the system. Which is perhaps the reason it needs to be absolutely in the clear.I have written before about the evening I sat with Seshan at his Pandara Road home as the Prime Minister’s private secretary called to say PV Narasimha Rao would like to speak to him — and Seshan counted one-two-three and disconnected the line.“I am the chief election commissioner of India, NOT the government of India,” he thundered at me.A decade ago, I contrasted that spine with the Commission of the day: a law minister campaigning in Uttar Pradesh promised a quota within a quota, was censured, repeated it at another rally, and dared the EC to hang him. The EC’s response, a ‘strong’ letter to the President, made it look helpless. It hurt to watch.Institutions are remembered for both those things: the spine and the fairness.The constitutional authority driving the SIR must ensure he is not only fair, but is perceived to be fair as well. Some decisions have to be taken without everything being made public every time; that is understandable. But the perception that the Commission is not pliable is critical. Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion.The largest democracy deserves it.
Disclaimer: Views expressed above are the author’s own.
