Disquiet within, all three Election Commissioners meet, take first steps

Why in the News

The Election Commission of India has announced nine decisions answering objections its two Election Commissioners filed over ten months, at its first full meeting since a reported divide became public. Voters served notices in the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls need no longer attend a hearing.

What is the Special Intensive Revision doing to voters?

1. What the revision is: A Special Intensive Revision rebuilds the roll instead of updating it, so a listed voter must prove eligibility again. It works like a fresh registration drive.
2. Who gets a notice: A notice goes to a voter absent from the earlier roll who could name no parent, marked unmapped, or to one the software flags as inconsistent, a logical discrepancy.
3. How far it has run: The revision is complete in twenty States and Union Territories. Anyone left out may apply to the Electoral Registration Officer, who decides roll entries.
4. The takeaway: The burden of proof has moved from the administration to the voter, so a software flag can endanger an elector’s name.

What has the Commission now decided?

1. No hearing for a noticed voter: Booth Level Officers will collect documents at home and upload them on ECINet, the Commission’s roll portal, instead of a hearing.
2. Hearings only by exception: Any hearing still needed is held preferably online, and any adult family member may attend for the elector.
3. Meetings and approvals on record: Agendas will be circulated and minutes issued for every meeting, officers’ foreign travel needs approval, and Commissioners’ directions must be obeyed.
4. Systems put under review: New technology modules go to a Committee of Officers. A committee under a Senior Deputy Election Commissioner, with an independent expert, will audit ECINet against the Acts and Rules.
5. Access for field officers: Field officers keep role based access matching their statutory powers, with more flexibility enabled if required.

What had the two Commissioners put on record?

1. A body that decides by majority: The Commission is constituted under Article 324 and has decided by majority as a three member body since 1993.
2. Objections on file: The two Commissioners objected at least fourteen times, on registration, deletion, restoration, appeals against restorations, and control of the roll systems.
3. Treated as suggestions: The notes were recorded as suggestions covering uncirculated agendas, unapproved travel, denied access to ERONet, the officers’ roll system, and a work redistribution order never carried out.

What do the nine decisions leave unanswered?

1. The enrolment form declaration: A declaration added to Form 6, the enrolment application under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, is withdrawn except inside the revision.
2. The online form goes unmentioned: The question on an applicant’s parents sits in the online Form 6. Only the Law Ministry can amend it, and the note omits whether it stays.
3. A contested claim about the Court: The Commission says the Supreme Court upheld the declaration, a reading the court’s order does not support.
4. West Bengal appeals unexplained: The note does not say who authorised appeals against voters judicial officers had cleared.
5. Goa’s missing electors: Ninety seven electors cleared locally were absent from Goa’s final roll, and eighty one have reapplied. The note does not say why Goa’s restoration facility was never enabled.

Challenges

1. Equal say, unequal tenure: The Commission decides by majority, yet only the Chief Election Commissioner has a Supreme Court judge’s removal protection, and an Election Commissioner goes on his recommendation.
2. A software flag with legal consequence: A centralised program generates the notice that puts a name at risk, and the elector cannot see the flagging rule.
3. Deletion is faster than restoration: A name removed in a revision returns only through a fresh application, so an error costs the voter a vote.
4. The registering authority as adversary: Where the Commission appeals against inclusions ordered by statutory officers, an elector must contest the body keeping the roll.

Way Forward

1. Publish the flagging logic: Publish the rules by which the software flags a discrepancy, so an elector can answer the notice.
2. A reasoned order before deletion: Require the Electoral Registration Officer to pass a written, appealable order before removing a name.
3. Minute the dissent: Record each Commissioner’s position in every meeting’s minutes, so a majority decision is visible as one.

Conclusion

Procedure inside the Commission has been repaired and the decisions that produced the dispute stand. What remains unsettled is whether two members who recorded objections now carry weight on the next decision.

Matching Previous Year Question

“[2026, GS2, 10 marks] Is the right to vote a fundamental right? Discuss the position of the Election Commission of India while undertaking the revision of electoral rolls. Can it also examine the question of citizenship of voters?”