<p>The Supreme Court’s directive to the Election Commission of India (ECI) to publish detailed, district-wise lists of the 65 lakh voters in Bihar whose names were omitted from the draft rolls published on August 1 should be seen as an adverse comment on the Commission’s functioning. </p>.<p>During the hearings on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, the EC had opposed the demand for publishing the deleted names. Voters’ lists are public documents that cannot be kept inaccessible to the citizens. The Court has also directed the EC to make public the reason for each deletion and to publicise these deletions through the media.</p>.<p>The order should make the Commission realise that its decisions cannot come at the expense of accountability. This is important, considering that many of the Commission’s recent moves, including the processes followed in the SIR in Bihar, have come under scrutiny. </p>.<p>Conducting the roll revision in Bihar close to the state Assembly election has triggered apprehensions that it could be a targeted exercise to excise sections of voters. Initially, the Commission was not responsive to the complaints and suggestions. It published the draft voters’ list on August 1, removing the names of 22.34 lakh people who it said were dead, 36.28 lakh who were “permanently shifted/absent" and 7.01 lakh others who had "enrolled at more than one place". </p>.<p>They constitute about 8 per cent of the voters’ list. It was soon revealed that the list contained many anomalies. Many voters who were taken as dead were reported alive; many others who had valid IDs were not enumerated. Genuine voters were excluded because of the difficulty in procuring identity documents. The publication of the excluded names with the reasons for their deletion would give some transparency to the process.</p>.<p>The Commission insisted in the court that only one of the 11 documents it prescribed would be accepted as the identity proof of a voter. It refused to consider Aadhaar as proof, though some of its prescribed documents did not have any greater sanctity than Aadhaar. The Court has now ordered that Aadhaar should be accepted as a valid document for the enumeration. It told the Commission: "...your manner has to be reasonable, has to give certain comfort to citizens." </p>.<p>A full evaluation of the SIR may be possible only on its conclusion, but the Court’s intervention has helped to remove some concerns over the revision. It needs to be noted that the Court is yet to rule on the constitutionality of the exercise.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court’s directive to the Election Commission of India (ECI) to publish detailed, district-wise lists of the 65 lakh voters in Bihar whose names were omitted from the draft rolls published on August 1 should be seen as an adverse comment on the Commission’s functioning. </p>.<p>During the hearings on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, the EC had opposed the demand for publishing the deleted names. Voters’ lists are public documents that cannot be kept inaccessible to the citizens. The Court has also directed the EC to make public the reason for each deletion and to publicise these deletions through the media.</p>.<p>The order should make the Commission realise that its decisions cannot come at the expense of accountability. This is important, considering that many of the Commission’s recent moves, including the processes followed in the SIR in Bihar, have come under scrutiny. </p>.<p>Conducting the roll revision in Bihar close to the state Assembly election has triggered apprehensions that it could be a targeted exercise to excise sections of voters. Initially, the Commission was not responsive to the complaints and suggestions. It published the draft voters’ list on August 1, removing the names of 22.34 lakh people who it said were dead, 36.28 lakh who were “permanently shifted/absent" and 7.01 lakh others who had "enrolled at more than one place". </p>.<p>They constitute about 8 per cent of the voters’ list. It was soon revealed that the list contained many anomalies. Many voters who were taken as dead were reported alive; many others who had valid IDs were not enumerated. Genuine voters were excluded because of the difficulty in procuring identity documents. The publication of the excluded names with the reasons for their deletion would give some transparency to the process.</p>.<p>The Commission insisted in the court that only one of the 11 documents it prescribed would be accepted as the identity proof of a voter. It refused to consider Aadhaar as proof, though some of its prescribed documents did not have any greater sanctity than Aadhaar. The Court has now ordered that Aadhaar should be accepted as a valid document for the enumeration. It told the Commission: "...your manner has to be reasonable, has to give certain comfort to citizens." </p>.<p>A full evaluation of the SIR may be possible only on its conclusion, but the Court’s intervention has helped to remove some concerns over the revision. It needs to be noted that the Court is yet to rule on the constitutionality of the exercise.</p>
.jpg?rect=0%2C0%2C1280%2C720&w=undefined&auto=format%2Ccompress&fit=max)
