Election Commission doesn’t share adequate voting-related information with people. That prevents a meaningful analysis of the electoral process.
On June 8, this newspaper carried a report (‘Rahul’s attack on EC doesn’t match poll data, officials say bid to “defame”’) contradicting an op-ed on its Ideas Page (‘Match-fixing Maharashtra’, IE, June 7). The report was accompanied by a “Special to The Express” article by the Chief Minister of a state governed by a political party different from that of the op-ed writer.
In the June 7 op-ed, the writer claims to have provided various instances of irregularities in the 2024 Maharashtra Vidhan Sabha elections. While this op-ed attributed the irregularities to the Election Commission of India (ECI) and the ruling party/coalition in Maharashtra, this paper’s analysis quoted ECI reports and “sources”. Both articles have been somewhat economical with the truth. They have chosen to tell a part of it.
Let us consider the first issue raised in both the op-ed and this paper’s report. The op-ed subtitles this: “Step 1: Rig the panel for appointment of umpires”. The report calls this: “Appointment of Election Commissioners”. The op-ed states,
“The 2023 Election Commissioners Appointment Act ensured that Election Commissioners are effectively chosen by the Prime Minister and the Home Minister by a 2:1 majority since the third member, the Leader of the Opposition, can always be outvoted. These gentlemen are also the top contestants in the contest whose umpires are being chosen…” The relevant section of the report starts with: “The fact is that successive governments across party lines — including the UPA — had opportunities to institutionalise a more transparent appointment mechanism but failed to do so.” After quoting two recommendations, made in 2007 and 2015, which were not accepted by the government, it quotes “a senior EC official” as saying, “Now for the first time, a law made by Parliament under Article 325 is in place since 2023 for the appointment of CEC and ECs. Which is better — the earlier system or the new one?”
It is a fact that successive governments across party lines did not avail themselves of opportunities to institutionalise a more transparent appointment mechanism, and Parliament did make a law in this regard for the first time in 2023. There is, however, more to it. The entire truth is a little more than these two “facts” combined. The Supreme Court, in a 378-page judgment on March 2, 2023, said, “The refusal of Parliament, despite what was contemplated by the Founding Fathers, and what is more, the availability of a large number of reports, all speaking in one voice, reassures us that even acting within the bounds of the authority available to the Judicial Branch, we must lay down norms.” It added,“We declare that as far as appointment to the posts of Chief Election Commissioner and the Election Commissioners are concerned, the same shall be done by the President of India on the basis of the advice tendered by a committee consisting of the Prime Minister of India, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and, in case there is no such leader, the leader of the largest party in the Opposition in the Lok Sabha having the largest numerical strength, and the Chief Justice of India. This norm will continue to hold good till a law is made by the Parliament.”
The chronology of the events indicates that the law had to be made because the Supreme Court took the matter into its own hands and decided to “lay down the norms”. Just for the record, a petition challenging the constitutionality of the law, which is clearly tilted in favour of the executive, is pending in the Supreme Court.
The entire truth about the first of the five issues is quite clear. It needs to be revealed for the remaining four issues raised in the op-ed as well.
Elsewhere, I have described in detail what I call the National Electoral System, which has four aspects; Voter/electoral rolls; poll scheduling, post-poll activities, electronic voting machines. Possibilities of manipulation or mischief exist at every one of these major stages. It is impossible to prove beyond doubt that they did not actually happen. That’s because physical access to all the components of the system is exclusively with the ECI, and the agency is less than willing to share information with voters. When pushed, it has maintained that laws and rules exist for everything and it scrupulously follows them. But things may not actually work this way.
A case in point is Form 17C, which contains the details of the total number of votes recorded on the day of polling, and the total number of registered voters. The ECI maintains that it follows the Conduct of Election Rules and provides copies of this form to all candidates or their polling agent. What often happens on the ground is that all candidates do not have polling agents — only candidates representing major political parties, or who are rich themselves, can afford to have polling agents. So in fact, not all candidates get copies of Form 17C.
In addition, voters do not have access to this form. Therefore, citizens interested in the electoral process cannot use the forms from all polling booths and all constituencies to meaningfully analyse the integrity of the electoral process. Now is the time to disclose the entire truth that is known only to the Election Commission of India. Not doing so would mean that arguments would rely on incomplete information.
The article was originally published in The Indian Express.