Terming the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) a "Frankenstein which has created fear in the minds of voters", former chief election commissioner OP Rawat on Wednesday said changes to the statutory voter registration Form 6 were "absolutely wrong and illegal".
Another former CEC, SY Quraishi, questioned whether elections could be held on electoral rolls prepared through a legally flawed revision exercise.
The two former CECs were reacting to a news report that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had repeatedly objected to decisions and orders issued without their knowledge during the SIR, including changes to Form 6 and the centralisation of control over the electoral roll database. The two commissioners recorded objections at least 14 times over the past 10 months, according to the report.
"This is an unfortunate situation. Such a thing has perhaps rarely happened in the Election Commission. I have also been there, but I saw that decisions were always taken unanimously," said Rawat, who served as CEC in 2018.
"Through SIR, it has created a kind of Frankenstein which has created fear in the minds of voters everywhere. This is not good. It is very unfortunate for our democracy," he said.
According to the report, Joshi recorded in May that Form 6 could not be changed through instructions issued for the SIR and that the "legally sustainable" course was to amend the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. Sandhu concurred with him.
However, a declaration linking new voter applications to the SIR was subsequently introduced in the online Form 6.
In August, Sandhu recorded that the change was "unauthorised and illegal" and should be removed immediately, the report said.
"What the election commissioners have said, that Form 6 was amended wrongly, that there is no provision for it in law, that their inputs were not taken and no meeting was held, is a very serious allegation. The way Form 6 has been amended is wrong. It is absolutely wrong and illegal," Rawat said.
Quraishi, who served as CEC from 2010 to 2012, agreed with the reported objection. "Joshi has correctly pointed out that if any addition was to be made, the rules should have been amended," he told PTI Videos.
"If the entire exercise of revising the electoral rolls has been illegal, then you cannot hold an election on the basis of an illegal electoral roll," Quraishi said.
He said there was a legal possibility of reverting to the electoral rolls that existed before the SIR if mistakes had been made.
"If some mistake has occurred, if this atrocity has happened, there is always a legal possibility of going back to the status quo ante, going back to square one, back to June 2025. If they can go back to 2002, why not go back to 2025?" he said.
Quraishi also asked who had taken the decision to undertake the SIR if, as reported, the two commissioners had not agreed to key decisions.
"If it was not the commissioners' decision, whose decision was it?"
"You cannot play with India's democracy so lightly. It is not a toy. It is not a plaything," he said, adding that "illegal actions" were not acceptable.
Rawat also criticised the reported centralisation of control over the electoral roll database, saying software could not be allowed to override decisions of field officials.
"If software has been designed in such a way that even if field functionaries are satisfied that a change should be made, they are helpless because the software does not permit it, then this is absolutely illegal and wrong," he said.
In his view, the developments risked further damaging public confidence in the poll body. Rawat also questioned why the two commissioners had not raised their concerns publicly earlier.
"The question will also arise as to why they remained silent for 10 months. Why did they not raise it earlier? They too are functionaries of a constitutional institution," he said.
Neither Sandhu nor Joshi has publicly spoken about the reported differences or their objections.
Responding to the report, the Election Commission said differing views and comments were a normal part of discussions in institutions and formed part of the decision-making process before a final decision was taken.
It said suggestions given by the commissioners were aimed at improving electoral processes and maintained that the final decisions of the full commission, including those relating to the SIR, were unanimous.
Under Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, the commission's business is required, as far as possible, to be transacted unanimously, and where members differ, the matter is decided according to the majority opinion.
(With inputs from PTI)
