‘Scrap the SIR’: Ashok Lavasa, former election commissioner

Interview/ Ashok Lavasa, former election commissioner

Q/ You have seen the Election Commission from inside. Given the controversies surrounding the special intensive revision (SIR), what should its immediate response be?

I think there is a need, first of all, to scrap the SIR. The current phase should be scrapped. And I think the Election Commission should do it itself rather than wait for a court order. They should admit that there have been mistakes and complaints in the third phase of the SIR and restore the electoral roll that existed before the third phase started. If there have been mistakes and complaints, then the EC should acknowledge them and take corrective action on its own.

The EC is an institution which has an important responsibility in ensuring that the electoral rolls are accurate and that every eligible voter is able to participate in the electoral process. Therefore, when there are concerns about the process, the response should be to address those concerns directly rather than wait for judicial intervention.

Q/ How would you deal with people whose names were deleted from the electoral rolls during the earlier phases of SIR?

They should devise a very easy procedure for all those people who have been deleted during the first or second phase of the SIR. There should be a very simple procedure by which the EC takes responsibility for admitting those people back into the electoral roll, obviously depending on their application. The procedure should not become an additional burden for the voter. If somebody is otherwise entitled to be on the electoral roll, then the process of restoration should be simple and accessible.

Q/ Are you suggesting that the EC should take greater responsibility for correcting the situation rather than leaving citizens to navigate a complicated restoration process?

Yes. The procedure should be simple and accessible. The objective should be to ensure that people who are otherwise entitled to be on the electoral roll are not kept out because of procedural difficulties. The EC should take responsibility for making the process easy for such people. Procedural difficulties should not become an obstacle for people who are entitled to be voters.

Q/ A large number of cases are pending before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal.

Those cases have to be fast-tracked so that within six months, eight months, or at the most a year, all these cases are decided. The larger the pendency, the longer people have to wait to know whether their names will be restored or whether an objection against their inclusion will succeed. The EC has to ensure that the process does not remain pending indefinitely.

Q/ You have raised questions about the reported 16 lakh appeals against entries in the West Bengal electoral roll. What exactly should the EC disclose about these appeals?

The EC must disclose who has filed these 16 lakh appeals. Did the EC authorise this? Did the EC file these appeals? Who are these people? Why have there been so many complaints against people who were already included in the electoral roll after following due process? These are questions that require clarification. The EC should explain how such a large number of appeals came about and who was responsible for initiating them. The EC needs to provide the facts. People need to know what happened and how the process was undertaken.

Q/ What does this episode tell us about the need for greater transparency in the functioning of the EC?

The EC needs to engage in dialogue and introduce transparent procedures. Only then can it restore the confidence of the people. Transparency is important because electoral rolls directly affect the right of citizens to participate in elections. If there are objections, appeals or changes to the electoral roll, the process by which these are dealt with should be clear. The EC has to communicate with people and explain its processes rather than leave questions unanswered.

Q/ Does the controversy also suggest that the EC needs to rethink how it communicates with voters and addresses concerns within its own machinery?

The EC has to be transparent about its processes. When objections are raised, people should know how those objections were considered and what decision was ultimately taken. Similarly, when there are complaints from electoral registration officers about the functioning of the system, those complaints need to be addressed. The EC has to have transparent procedures not only for the public but also within its own machinery. If concerns are raised internally, they should be dealt with properly and the process should be clear.

Q/ What should be the larger institutional priority for the EC now?

The priority should be to restore confidence in the electoral process. That requires correcting mistakes, simplifying procedures for people whose names have been deleted, resolving pending cases within a reasonable amount of time and introducing transparent procedures. All these things are connected. If mistakes are acknowledged and corrected, if people have an easy way of getting their names restored, if pending cases are decided within a reasonable period and if the procedures are transparent, then confidence can be restored.

Q/ What will it take to restore public confidence in the electoral process?

The EC needs to get into a dialogue, introduce transparent procedures and address the complaints before it. Only then can it restore the confidence of the people. The immediate requirement is to deal with the concerns that have arisen, correct mistakes and make the procedures easier and more transparent. The EC has to ensure that people have confidence in the electoral rolls and in the process through which their names are included, excluded or restored. That requires openness, dialogue and a willingness to address complaints rather than allowing them to remain unresolved.