Former Election Commissioner Ashok Lavasa, who also served in the Asian Development Bank as Vice President, says that the recent controversy around the Election Commission of India (ECI) has been unpleasant and causes concerns. In an interview with TNIE, he says the entire process and the methodology followed by the Commission in conducting the SIR are flawed.
Excerpts:
How do you view the recent controversy around the functioning of the ECI?
I think it was unpleasant and causes concern if the media reports are true. Had this been only internal differences, it would have had little impact, but it has come out in the open.
Have the differences and dissent between the CEC and the two Commissioners becoming public dented the Commission’s credibility?
Differences within may not have much implication. But the manner in which these have been brought into the open requires a lot of doing. With the controversies coming into the open, the Commission has to come on record to clarify the issues raised. Unless that is done, we will not be able to know the actual position. Any lack of transparency will have its implications with regard to credibility and confidence.
Were the alleged unilateral changes made by the ECI to Form 6 as part of the SIR order within its powers?
In my judgment, under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, Form 6 is governed by subordinate legislation, which empowers only the government to make changes to it. Even today, we don’t know how the changes were brought in. As per the ECI clarification, which was issued after the controversies hit the headlines, the same was shown to the Supreme Court. But it is still not clear if the Supreme Court was informed that the changes were made with the approval of the government.
How do you view the ECI’s SIR processes?
To me, the entire process and methodology followed by the Election Commission are flawed. To me, the entire Special Intensive Revision (SIR) was unnecessary, particularly the way it is being conducted. All three phases of the SIR were rolled out with a number of infirmities. The Supreme Court upheld only the fact that the EC is constitutionally empowered to conduct the SIR, provided the power was exercised in a fair manner.
The Commission reportedly differed internally over administrative issues and work allocation to senior officials. The two Commissioners are reported to have written to the Cabinet Secretary about this. How is it possible for a constitutional authority to write to the country’s senior-most bureaucrat instead of the President?
I think the issue has to be looked into in two ways—from the point of view of the officer against whom the letter was allegedly written, and then the Cabinet Secretary who happens to be the head of the bureaucracy. That is why, the Election Commissioners informed the Cabinet Secretary about the functioning of the officer. But the Cabinet Secretary has no authority over the ECI’s actual functioning. So, here the moot question is how the issue came to this level. Why wasn’t it resolved within? The developments point towards a possible breakdown in the ECI.
The two Commissioners remained silent for over a month amid allegations that the CEC took decisions unilaterally. What do you have to say about this?
How do you assume that they were not necessarily exercising their legal authority? If the two Commissioners were on the one side, the majority view was with them, and what prevented them from calling a meeting of the Commission and taking decisions based on that majority? The CEC is not the Commission, but first among equals.
On the issue of centralisation of ERONET through ECINET, do you think the powers of EROs and DEOs empowered to add or delete names of voters under the law, were curtailed?
That is absolutely improper, as it creates a hurdle for those empowered under the law to perform their legal duties. If EROs were finding it difficult to perform their duties using the IT system, it needed to be corrected or replaced, as these are internal management issues. We have the example of Goa, where 97 eligible voters were to be included in the electoral rolls, but the EROs were unable to do so. Even the clarification issued by the ECI showed that all of them had still not been included, though seven months had passed. No one can argue against adoption of technology, but it cannot be used in a manner that goes against legal provisions and hinders those who are legally empowered from performing their duties.