Election Commission clarifies amidst questions regarding SIR; explains the full details in eight points

Amidst reports of differences within the Election Commission regarding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), the Commission has presented its stance across eight points. The Commission stated that differing opinions and suggestions are a normal part of the decision-making process. According to the Commission, decisions taken over the past year have been made with the consensus of the full Commission.

1. Functioning as a constitutional body under established procedures

The Election Commission stated that it is a multi-member constitutional body functioning under Article 324 of the Constitution, relevant laws, and established institutional conventions. Written comments, suggestions, technical opinions, and internal review mechanisms are part of its regular functioning. Their objective is to ensure transparency, legal compliance, and administrative robustness in the electoral process.

2. All orders and decisions are legally valid

The Commission stated that all its official orders, decisions, and administrative directives are legally valid. These are issued in accordance with the procedures prescribed under the 2023 law concerning the appointment, service conditions, and tenure of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners.

3. Suggestions by Commissioners are part of normal administrative procedure

According to the Commission, questions raised and suggestions offered by Commissioners while drafting procedures are part of the normal administrative process. Their aim is to safeguard voters’ rights and further improve the electoral process. The Commission stated that such suggestions should not be viewed as dissent or disagreement regarding the decision.

4. Divergent views are a normal occurrence

The Commission stated that it is normal for diverse views and suggestions to emerge within any institution. Deliberation prior to a final decision is an integral part of the decision-making process. According to the Commission, not only the Chief Election Commissioner and the two Election Commissioners but any official within the Commission can offer suggestions to improve the electoral system.

5. Selected internal comments do not reveal the full picture

The Commission stated that assessing the entire process based on a few selected internal notes and comments that surfaced over a ten-month period does not present an accurate picture. According to the Commission, numerous decisions were taken, directives issued, and around 40 new initiatives launched during this same period. These included the Special Summary Revision (SSR) of electoral rolls and other electoral reforms. The Commission noted that these decisions were taken over the past year with the consensus of the full Commission.

6. Cited the conduct of major elections

The Commission pointed out that major elections and various election-related processes were recently concluded in Bihar, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, Assam, and West Bengal. According to the Commission, conducting these elections involved extensive administrative and technical arrangements, alongside numerous approvals and directives from the Commission itself.

7. Claims regarding the security of digital platforms

The Commission stated that its digital platforms, including ECINet, operate under stringent data security protocols. Technical security checks, audits, and cybersecurity measures are in place to prevent unauthorized interference and tampering. The task of adding or deleting names from the electoral roll is carried out by Electoral Registration Officers and District Election Officers in accordance with the powers vested in them by law.

8. Committed to fulfilling constitutional responsibilities

In its final point, the Commission affirmed its commitment to discharging its constitutional obligations with utmost integrity. Highlighting its pivotal role in the democratic system, the Commission stated that it would continue working to ensure the electoral process remains robust and credible.

Controversy arose following a report

Questions regarding the SSR and the Election Commission’s internal decision-making process were raised following a report published in an English newspaper. The report claimed that, in certain instances, decisions were pushed through despite objections from two Election Commissioners, and that objections had been recorded on multiple occasions over the ten-month period. In its eight-point clarification, the Commission has stated that all its decisions, including the SIR, were taken with the approval of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Gyanesh Kumar.