ECI must address concerns over its decision-making and transparency

When the Election Commission of India met on Saturday, for the first time after this newspaper’s investigation into the disquiet within, it did well to break an untenable silence. In the immediate aftermath of it coming to light that two of the three Election Commissioners had recorded their objections, 14 times in 10 months, on the Commission’s decision-making — on matters relating to registering new voters, deleting and restoring names in the electoral rolls and control of the system through which the rolls are maintained — the Commission sought to paper over the cracks. The four-page note issued after Saturday’s meeting, therefore, is welcome. Its nine decisions address several of the objections recorded by Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. And yet, there are important leftover concerns. Given the record of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar — of rendering the three-member Commission’s functioning unilateral and opaque — the Commission needs to break more silences. A new normal inside it needs to be clearly spelt out. Steps must be taken to ensure that the ECI does not slide back into a one-man show.

The onus is still on the ECI because the poll monitor’s weakening is an especially disquieting prospect when political polarisation is rising and institutions are fraying. It is the ECI that underwrites a fundamental democratic compact — the voter has the power to decide who rules, and the rules of the game are larger than those who win or lose power. In distrustful times, it is even more necessary that people’s trust in the ECI’s credibility as an impartial referee, and in the checks and balances within, is protected. The ECI’s press note on Saturday, however, falls short. While it gives some relief to voters by exempting from in-person hearings those issued notices for “logical discrepancies” and for being “unmapped”, it does not say who inserted the question on the applicant’s parents into Form 6 in July, and who allowed it to stay there even after Commissioner Sandhu called it “unauthorised/illegal” in August. It says that agendas will now be circulated before every ECI meeting and minutes issued afterwards, the system will provide EROs more flexibility and a committee will be formed to review ECINet. But it is silent on what, if any, action will be taken against DG(IT) Seema Khanna and senior deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg, whose controversial conduct was flagged by the two ECs. It is still not known who authorised the appeals against voters whose inclusion was ordered by judicial officers in West Bengal. And why the requested software was never enabled to restore voter names in Goa.

The ECI must fill in the blanks. Then, it must act and it must be seen to act to correct the course. Going ahead, there must be regular meetings and briefings. Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi must continue to push back at the distortions within. Most of all, CEC Gyanesh Kumar must acknowledge the damage done to the Commission on his watch, and make amends. Whether and how he does that — not just damage control — is key to the trust of we, the people, in the integrity of elections.