Trustee, Nandini Voice for the Deprived
When the Election Commission of India launched the voter-verification exercise known as the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), it could reasonably be argued that the Commission was justified in undertaking this nationwide exercise. A comprehensive revision of electoral rolls is an important responsibility of the Election Commission, particularly when the objective is to ensure that genuine and eligible voters are able to exercise their franchise in a free and fair election.
The need for periodically updating electoral rolls cannot be dismissed. Over time, voters may change addresses, duplicate entries may arise, and the names of deceased persons may remain on the rolls if they are not properly removed. There may also be concerns about ineligible persons being included in electoral rolls. Verification is therefore an essential part of maintaining the integrity of the electoral process.
However, several opposition parties in India have questioned the need for the present SIR exercise. They have expressed concerns about the manner in which the verification is being conducted and about the possibility of genuine voters being excluded from the electoral rolls. These concerns deserve to be heard and addressed through transparent procedures and credible evidence.
When the initial electoral rolls were published following the SIR exercise, there were substantial deletions in several states. The scale of deletions varied considerably from one state and region to another. The Election Commission made it clear that names could be restored where eligible voters produced credible evidence of their entitlement to be included in the electoral rolls. Where such evidence was provided, corrections and additions were accordingly made.
In a country as vast and populous as India, conducting a door-to-door verification exercise involving millions of voters is an enormous administrative undertaking. Thousands of personnel have been engaged in the process. Given the sheer size and complexity of the exercise, it is possible that errors or discrepancies may occur. No large-scale administrative exercise can realistically be expected to be entirely free of human error, whoever happens to be heading the Election Commission.
What matters, therefore, is whether there are mechanisms to identify and correct such errors. If an eligible voter has been inadvertently excluded, there must be a clear and accessible procedure for restoring the person's name to the electoral roll. The credibility of the exercise ultimately depends not merely on deletions, but also on the transparency and effectiveness of the correction mechanism.
The SIR issue has also reached the Supreme Court, the country's highest court. The Court has considered petitions and sought clarifications from the Election Commission regarding various aspects of the exercise. The Commission has provided responses to the questions raised, while political parties have continued to express their concerns.
Against this background, however, a highly charged political campaign has emerged against the Chief Election Commissioner. Some opposition leaders have demanded his resignation, while others have gone further and called for his arrest. There have also been statements about moving a resolution in Parliament seeking his removal.
Strong criticism of a constitutional authority is entirely legitimate in a democracy. But criticism should be based on facts, evidence and reasoned argument. Personal vilification, inflammatory language and demands based on unverified allegations do little to strengthen democratic institutions.
Equally concerning is the manner in which sections of the print, television and social media have covered the controversy. At times, provocative statements, allegations and sensational claims appear to receive greater attention than careful examination of the underlying facts.
The media has an indispensable role in scrutinising constitutional authorities. But that role carries a corresponding responsibility: allegations should be verified, competing positions should be fairly represented, and legitimate public debate should not be reduced to sensationalism.
It is no secret that sections of the Indian media are perceived as having political, corporate or ideological affiliations. Such perceptions can undermine public confidence in journalism when coverage appears to be driven more by controversy than by facts. Ultimately, the credibility of the media depends upon its commitment to accuracy, fairness and accountability.
Some self-described intellectuals and public commentators have also joined the debate, offering strong criticism of the Election Commission and its leadership. Former Chief Election Commissioners have expressed their own views on the SIR exercise as well. Their opinions deserve consideration, but they too should be assessed on the basis of the arguments and evidence they present.
The present controversy should not become a contest in personal reputations. The larger issue is the integrity of India's electoral rolls and the confidence of citizens in the electoral process.
So far, the Chief Election Commissioner has conducted himself with the dignity expected of the holder of a high constitutional office. Whether one agrees with every decision of the Election Commission or not, disagreement should be expressed through constitutional and democratic means rather than through personal attacks.
The Election Commission, for its part, must continue to ensure maximum transparency in the SIR process, promptly address genuine grievances, publish relevant data and provide accessible avenues for eligible citizens to correct their electoral records. Such measures would strengthen public confidence and address legitimate concerns without compromising the objective of maintaining accurate electoral rolls.
The title of this article says that the Chief Election Commissioner has “not sinned, but has been sinned against.” The phrase is deliberately provocative, but the underlying point is simple: an official exercising a difficult constitutional responsibility should be judged on evidence and due process, not on the volume or intensity of political criticism directed against him.
India's democracy is larger than any individual, political party or controversy. Ultimately, there is reason to believe that Indian citizens possess the wisdom to distinguish between legitimate criticism and political rhetoric, between administrative shortcomings and deliberate wrongdoing, and between facts and allegations.
That maturity among citizens is essential if India is to continue moving forward in the right direction.
---
*Trustee, Nandini Voice for the Deprived, Chennai
Comments