But these administrative ‘adjustments’ are no more than cosmetic.
On 30 October, Yogendra Yadav placed seven questions before the public that the Commission is yet to answer:
1. Who took the decision to conduct the SIR?
2. How did the ECI alter Form 6?
3. How did the Commission transfer the powers of electoral registration officers (EROs) to its IT division?
4. Who filed 16 lakh cases in West Bengal?
5. Which software determined logical discrepancies during the SIR?
6. How were large numbers of Form 7 applications filed simultaneously, and how could an official file Form 7?
7. If the SIR is complete, how are Form 8 applications still being accepted? Such a case occurred in Pilibhit. What guarantees it has not happened elsewhere, and why does the Commission’s system have no mechanism to prevent it?
Nikhil Dey, a social activist associated with the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan, says the agitation will continue. “The entire process of adding and deleting names operates within a government-controlled framework. BLOs and EROs are government employees. The Election Commission listens only to the government. We therefore demand a public audit of electoral rolls three months before every election. The Commission must publicly read out names and explain who is being marked as shifted and who is being deleted. Only this can restore the confidence of citizens and political parties.”
Dey makes another fundamental point: “Suppose the SIR is cancelled and a ‘good’ chief election commissioner is appointed. Even then, the citizen’s future stays in the ECI’s hands. That is something we cannot accept.”
Can the ECI duck accountability by announcing a series of U-turns before the forthcoming assembly elections? Noor Mohammad is unequivocal: “Patchwork will not work. The Election Commission has weaponised Forms 6, 7 and 8. A particular political party is supporting this entire process. Public trust cannot be restored unless the entire exercise is cancelled. Ideally, the entire Commission should be replaced. Why is the government not taking the initiative? The Election Commission has run out of options.”
The point is inescapable: an institution entrusted with protecting the citizen’s right to vote cannot keep changing the rules, deleting names and offering belated clarifications without answering for its actions. Public trust cannot be restored through administrative patchwork. The ECI must answer for the damage already done.
About the Author
