 |
|
The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) has brought a significant issue to the attention of the Supreme Court regarding the deletion of approximately 65 lakh names from the electoral roll in Bihar by the Election Commission of India (ECI). ADR alleges that despite possessing the data detailing the reasons behind these deletions, the ECI deliberately removed the column specifying these reasons before publishing the draft roll on August 1. This action has raised serious concerns about transparency and the potential disenfranchisement of legitimate voters. The Supreme Court has promptly responded by directing the ECI to provide a clarification by Saturday, addressing the concerns raised by ADR. The Court is particularly interested in whether the draft roll was shared with political parties prior to its public release and, if so, which parties received these lists. This inquiry is crucial because ADR claims that an earlier version of the electoral roll, shared with some political parties before the draft roll's publication, included a column titled “Uncollectable Reason,” which provided the justification for not filling the Enumeration Form. However, this critical column was conspicuously absent from the list circulated after the draft roll was published, raising suspicions about the ECI's intentions. ADR's contention is that the current format of the electoral roll deviates from past practices, where the names of all deleted electors were published in the booth-level roll, along with a summary of additions and deletions on the last page. The omission of these details makes it exceedingly difficult for the public, political parties, and organizations like ADR to verify the legitimacy of the deletions. This lack of transparency undermines the integrity of the electoral process and raises serious questions about the fairness of upcoming elections. Furthermore, ADR emphasizes that voters whose names are missing from the draft roll are denied crucial legal remedies, such as notice or personal hearing, under Rule 21A of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. This effectively deprives them of the opportunity to challenge their deletion from the electoral roll, placing them at a heightened risk of disenfranchisement. The potential for widespread disenfranchisement is a grave concern, as it could significantly impact the outcome of elections and erode public trust in the democratic process. ADR argues that the ECI's concealment of the reason for deletion against each name in the list of 65 lakh electors appears to be a deliberate attempt to prevent the general public, including organizations like ADR, from determining whether the deleted electors are genuinely deceased or have permanently migrated. This lack of transparency fuels suspicion and raises concerns about the possibility of irregularities or malpractices in the electoral process. ADR points to a press note issued by the ECI on July 25, which stated that approximately 22 lakh electors were found to be deceased, 7 lakh were registered in more than one location, and 35 lakh had either permanently migrated or were untraceable. ADR argues that this press note demonstrates that the ECI possesses granular data on the reasons for deletion but has chosen not to make this data public. This selective disclosure of information further strengthens the suspicion that the ECI is deliberately withholding crucial details from the public. ADR's application to the Supreme Court also highlights the fact that the list of 65 lakh deleted electors fails to disclose the reason for non-submission of their enumeration forms, information that the ECI evidently possesses. In other words, the ECI fails to provide any explanation as to why these names were not included in the Draft Electoral Rolls, whether for reason of having been deceased, permanently migrated out of Bihar, being untraceable, or on the ground of duplicate entry. This omission raises serious questions about the accuracy and fairness of the electoral roll and the potential for manipulation. ADR's application further seeks the publication of a booth-wise list of electors whose Enumeration Forms were marked “not recommended” by Booth Level Officers (BLOs), as required under the ECI's June 24 directive. ADR argues that there are no published guidelines on how such recommendations are made, which raises concerns about the potential for arbitrary or biased decisions. ADR highlights the fact that a high number of electors, i.e., 10.6% of the forms in Darbhanga and 12.6% in Kaimur, were marked not recommended by BLOs, suggesting a potential problem with the process. In its prayer to the Supreme Court, ADR has asked the Court to direct the ECI to publish (a) a full and final assembly constituency and booth-wise list of the deleted 65 lakh electors along with reasons for deletion, and (b) a booth-wise list of electors in the August 1 draft roll whose Enumeration Forms have been marked “not recommended by the BLOs”. These requests are aimed at ensuring transparency and accountability in the electoral process and preventing the disenfranchisement of legitimate voters. The petitions challenging the Bihar SIR exercise are scheduled to be heard on August 12, highlighting the urgency and importance of this matter.
The core of ADR's argument rests on the fundamental principle of transparency in electoral processes. A healthy democracy relies on informed participation, and concealing the reasons for voter roll deletions directly undermines this principle. By removing the 'Uncollectable Reason' column, the ECI effectively prevents citizens and political parties from scrutinizing the accuracy and fairness of the deletions. This lack of accountability can lead to suspicion of manipulation, especially when such a large number of voters are affected. The ECI's claim that some voters are deceased, migrated, or untraceable requires verifiable evidence, not simply an unsupported assertion. Without access to the specific reasons for each deletion, it is impossible to ascertain whether these claims are accurate or whether the deletions were made for political purposes. The fact that an earlier version of the roll, shared with select political parties, contained this crucial information further fuels the suspicion that the ECI is deliberately attempting to obscure the reasons for the deletions from public view. The differential treatment of political parties in accessing this information raises questions about fairness and impartiality. It suggests that some parties may have an unfair advantage in understanding the electoral landscape, potentially allowing them to target specific demographics or manipulate the voter base. This undermines the level playing field that is essential for a fair and democratic election. ADR's reliance on Rule 21A of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, underscores the importance of providing due process to voters who are at risk of being removed from the roll. This rule guarantees voters the right to notice and a personal hearing before their names are deleted. However, if voters are unaware that their names have been removed, they are unable to exercise this right, effectively denying them the opportunity to challenge their deletion. This is particularly concerning for vulnerable populations, such as the elderly, the poor, and those with limited access to information, who may be disproportionately affected by these deletions. The high number of enumeration forms marked "not recommended" by Booth Level Officers (BLOs) also raises concerns about potential irregularities in the voter registration process. The lack of clear guidelines on how BLOs should make these recommendations creates a risk of bias and arbitrary decisions. Without proper oversight and accountability, BLOs could potentially be influenced by political factors or personal biases, leading to the wrongful exclusion of eligible voters. The wide variation in the percentage of forms marked "not recommended" across different constituencies (10.6% in Darbhanga and 12.6% in Kaimur) further suggests that the process is not being applied consistently and fairly.
The Supreme Court's intervention in this matter is a crucial step towards ensuring the integrity of the electoral process in Bihar. By directing the ECI to provide a clarification, the Court has signaled its commitment to upholding the principles of transparency and accountability. The Court's focus on whether the draft roll was shared with political parties prior to publication highlights the importance of fairness and impartiality in the electoral process. If the Court finds that the ECI has deliberately withheld information or treated political parties unequally, it could issue orders to rectify the situation and ensure that all parties have equal access to information. ADR's petition to the Supreme Court is a testament to the vital role that civil society organizations play in safeguarding democracy. By monitoring the electoral process, identifying potential irregularities, and bringing these issues to the attention of the courts, organizations like ADR help to hold government institutions accountable and protect the rights of citizens. The outcome of this case will have significant implications for the future of electoral integrity in India. If the Court rules in favor of ADR, it will send a strong message that transparency and accountability are essential components of a healthy democracy and that the ECI must be held to the highest standards of conduct. Conversely, if the Court rules against ADR, it could embolden the ECI to continue its practices of concealing information and denying due process to voters, potentially undermining the fairness and integrity of future elections. Ultimately, the responsibility for ensuring a fair and democratic electoral process rests with all stakeholders, including the ECI, the courts, political parties, civil society organizations, and individual citizens. By working together to promote transparency, accountability, and due process, we can protect the integrity of our elections and ensure that the voices of all citizens are heard.
Source: ECI Hasn't Given Reasons For Deleting 65 Lakh Electors From Bihar Draft Roll : ADR To Supreme Court