Dodging questions, withholding records: RTI activist slams ECI for culture of silence

By Jag Jivan 

Prominent transparency campaigner Venkatesh Nayak has accused the Election Commission of India (ECI) of evading accountability and withholding basic information in response to two recent Right to Information (RTI) queries concerning the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar and a nationwide engagement drive with political parties.

Nayak, Director of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI), shared with media copies of his RTI applications and the Commission’s replies, calling them “vague, evasive, and half-baked.”

RTI Plea on Accountability for Inclusion of Ineligible Voters

The RTI, filed on June 27, sought details of legal provisions and past actions against Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) and Assistant Electoral Registration Officers (AEROs) found responsible for including ineligible individuals — including suspected foreign nationals — in the voters’ list.

“The ultimate responsibility for including names of ineligible persons in the voter lists lies with the EROs/AEROs,” Nayak wrote. “An ineligible person cannot get his/her name included unless the ERO/AERO signs off after completing the detailed procedure in the law.”

The ECI’s reply, sent after 35 days — beyond the RTI Act’s 30-day deadline — referred to Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and claimed that no information was available on past cases. The CPIO refused to transfer the request to state Chief Electoral Officers (CEOs) or District Election Officers (DEOs), saying it related to “more than one public authority.”

Nayak called this unacceptable:

“Section 32 is an omnibus penal provision… it is not strong enough to cover the serious problem of inclusion of ineligible persons. The ECI has not mentioned any other provision in penal laws that could apply, such as the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita or the Indian Penal Code. The reply seems half-baked.”

He questioned whether the provision had ever been invoked:

“Is this because this provision has never been invoked despite the ECI’s knowledge of wrongful inclusion of ineligible persons? Or is the ECI trying to shield errant officers?”

Earlier RTI: Nationwide Meetings with Political Parties

Another RTI, filed April 25, sought state-wise details, agendas, and Action Taken Reports (ATRs) from thousands of meetings the ECI claims were held earlier this year between electoral officers and political parties to resolve election-related issues.

In its April 1 press note, the ECI reported that within 25 days, CEOs held 40 meetings, DEOs 800, and EROs 3,879, involving more than 28,000 political party representatives.

Yet, the CPIO replied that the Commission held none of the information requested and advised Nayak to approach individual CEOs directly, again refusing to transfer the RTI.

Nayak called the denial implausible:

“If the CPIO claims the ECI has no information about these reports, can that be believed? Even if all issues were resolved, the CEOs would have sent ATRs. The CPIO’s reply cannot be trusted at all.”

Pattern of Denial and Lack of Transparency

Nayak says these evasive replies reflect a deeper problem:

“Denial of the existence of even basic information which the ECI tells the electoral bureaucracy to send to Nirvachan Sadan has become a policy matter. Despite taking so much flak, the ECI seems to think opacity will serve its purpose better than transparency.”

Citing the Supreme Court’s repeated backing of the ECI, Nayak warned:

“With enormous power comes enormous responsibility. Preferring opacity amounts to putting an axe to the roots of its own credibility — or whatever is left of it."

He noted that filing appeals is often futile, with the first appellate authority upholding the CPIO’s stance and second appeals delayed for over a year due to vacancies in the Central Information Commission.