An investigative report by The Indian Express has shocked the entire nation. Two Election Commissioners—Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi—have registered written objections at least 14 times over the last 10 months against decisions taken under the leadership of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar.
The deletion of over 13 crore names during the SIR (Special Intensive Revision), "unauthorised and illegal" changes in Form 6, the centralisation of the voter database in Delhi, and the written complaints reaching all the way to the Cabinet Secretary—all of this is now on official record.
But the biggest question remains:
If the internal objections were so severe that the democratic foundation of the country was shaking, why did the three commissioners appear so united in joint press conferences, international summits, and public events during those very same 10 months?
There was absolutely no public dissent. Only smiles, shared photographs, and joint statements of solidarity.
So the question is clear— is the internal system of checks and balances within the Election Commission still alive, preserved by them in written files? Or were these objections merely a paper-pushing formality, while the facade of "all is well" continued outside?
The Election Commission claims that—“differing views are part of the decision-making process, and all major decisions were taken unanimously.” But when two commissioners themselves knock on the door of the Cabinet Secretary, can this deep divide really be brushed aside by calling it mere "differing views"?
Let's look deeper:
First of all,
Two out of the three members in the commission are repeatedly writing that several decisions were being made in the name of the institution without their knowledge and consent. They went as far as calling some changes “unauthorised and illegal.” Eventually, they approached the Cabinet Secretary.
The question is—is the Election Commission still a “collegial body” (a collective institution), or has it become completely CEC-centric? The 2023 law mandates a provision for decisions to be made “as far as possible unanimously.” Is that process still intact?
Secondly,
Serious objections were raised against centralising the voter database into Delhi's ECINet system and restricting the access of local Electoral Registration Officers (EROs). The case of Goa serves as a clear example—where despite approvals from the Supreme Court and local officials, the software blocked 97 eligible voters from being re-included in the list.
The Representation of the People Act grants independent authority to local officials. So, has a software program now risen above the law of the land? Has digital centralisation increased transparency, or diminished it?
In all this, it is crucial to examine the impact on the ordinary voter.
A new question was abruptly injected into Form 6—asking whether the names of the applicant's parents or grandparents were included in the previous SIR. Even though the statutory form was never legally amended, this field became practically mandatory in the online application process.
What will be the impact of this on youth voting for the first time and those whose names were deleted? Following the removal of over 13 crore names from the draft rolls, how easy and accessible is the claims and objections process? This is a dangerous trade-off between the need for a "clean roll" versus the fundamental "right to vote." Both the numbers and the procedures demand close scrutiny.
This is not just about the CEC. This is about the very credibility of the institution on which the foundation of our democracy rests.
One straightforward question in the end:
- Written Objections = A robust internal mechanism?
- OR
- Public Unity = The real balance of power has vanished?
0 Comments