ECI’s course correction is welcome, need for accountability remains

Why in the News

The Election Commission of India (ECI) has moved from denying the objections of two of its own Election Commissioners (ECs) to rolling back several of the decisions they contested. The reversals followed a newspaper investigation showing the two ECs had objected on record 14 times in 10 months. Still unresolved is who answers for decisions taken alone where the law requires joint ones.

Why did the Election Commissioners’ objections matter?

1. Multi-member Commission: The ECI has a Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and two ECs. Like a three judge Bench, it must decide unanimously or by majority, so no member may act alone.
2. What was contested: The objections concerned the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), a door-to-door re-check of every voter entry. One EC called changes to Form 6, the application to add a voter, “illegal and unauthorised”.
3. The takeaway: The roll-backs concede the dissent had substance.

What has the ECI reversed?

1. Form 6: The ECI dropped the changes for States without an SIR. The Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) of Maharashtra wants Form 6 adapted for readmitting deleted electors, so they face no criminal liability for a false undertaking.
2. Readmitting deleted electors: Booth level officers (BLOs), the field verifiers, will visit homes of those flagged for “logical discrepancy”. CEOs will hold readmission camps in SIR-completed States for eligible deleted electors.
3. ECINet audit: Technical experts will check whether ECINet, the ECI’s single digital platform, complies with the law.
4. Summary revision resumed: The Special Summary Revision (SSR), the routine roll update, has resumed. Its suspension allegedly denied millions of first-time voters enrolment.
5. Form 7 and machine-readable rolls: The ECI has capped objections under Form 7, the form to object to an entry, after allegations of misuse. Parties will get machine-readable rolls, a long-pending demand.

Why do the reversals not settle accountability?

1. Contradictory logic: The SSR has the same stated aims as the SIR. Electors deleted months ago as “ineligible” may now re-enrol, so one irrational step replaces another.
2. Unexplained appeals: Over 16 lakh appeals in West Bengal remain unexplained.
3. Cost of the exercise: The SIR neither identified the “ineligible” nor added the “eligible”, which normal revision could have done, and it caused mass anxiety.
4. Illegalities unaddressed: Responsibility is still to be fixed for unilateral decisions, the contested form changes and software that obstructed Electoral Registration Officers (EROs).
5. Reluctant transparency: The ECI published deleted electors’ names only after a Supreme Court order last year.

Who must now fix responsibility?

1. Supreme Court: Responsibility now rests with the Court, which watched the SIR unfold but largely let the ECI be a judge in its own cause, deciding objections to its own conduct.
2. Two possible verdicts: The Court may uphold the decisions, leaving the aggrieved to seek redress, or rule them illegal, as it did with the Tamil Nadu Governor’s actions.
3. Propriety questions: It remains open whether the CEC should step back from official work until exonerated, and whether Parliament will act against a constitutional authority the Court holds responsible.

Challenges

1. Insecure tenure for dissenters: An EC can be removed on the CEC’s recommendation, unlike the CEC, so dissent carries personal risk.
2. Financial dependence: The ECI’s budget is not “charged” on the Consolidated Fund of India, meaning spent without a vote, so it needs annual approval.
3. Dissent kept internal: Objections recorded on file did not change decisions until they were reported.

Way Forward

1. Equal removal protection: Parliament should give ECs the CEC’s removal protection, as the Tarkunde (1975) and Goswami (1990) Committees suggested.
2. Recorded votes: The ECI should record each member’s vote on every decision, so majority rule can be checked.
3. Charged expenditure: Parliament should charge ECI expenses on the Consolidated Fund, as the Law Commission’s 255th Report recommended.

Conclusion

The roll-backs repair part of the harm of the revision, but not the breach of the Commission’s collective decision-making. What to watch is the Supreme Court’s verdict on the alleged illegalities and whether Parliament acts on it.

Election Commission of India

1. Constitutional basis: Article 324 gives the ECI superintendence, direction and control of electoral rolls and of elections to Parliament, State Legislatures, President and Vice-President.
2. Appointment ruling: Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023) set a panel of the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition and the Chief Justice of India until Parliament legislated.
3. Appointment law: The Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 replaced the Chief Justice with a Cabinet Minister.

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?”