<p>In his media conference on Sunday, Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar failed to respond convincingly to allegations made by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi about voter-list anomalies in Bengaluru’s Mahadevapura constituency, and the general conduct of the Commission. Questions have also been raised by others on the processes followed by the Commission. </p>.<p>The Commission, it was expected, would respond to these concerns with credible explanations. Instead, Kumar made broad denials, took a combative position, and made unnecessary comments. The Commission asked Gandhi to produce the proof of his charges on affidavit or render an apology. What power does the CEC have to set deadlines, lay down conditions, and seek an apology from a political leader, a citizen who has raised questions about the Commission’s conduct? </p>.<p>Rule 20(3)(b), which was invoked for this demand, does not apply to Gandhi’s case. It needs to be noted that the Commission did not demand an affidavit from BJP leader Anurag Thakur, who claimed that similar irregularities occurred in constituencies won by the Congress. The language and the tone used by the CEC did not align with the conduct of a constitutional functionary. Kumar sounded more political than constitutional, preconceived rather than receptive, and dismissive rather than understanding.</p>.<p>The CEC maintained that the claims of large-scale voter-list manipulation, through ‘House No. 0’ entries or duplicate names, were exaggerated and that parties had the opportunity to flag genuine errors before the rolls were finalised. But the inflated voters’ list that Gandhi presented is no exaggeration. The Commission asked for evidence, while the evidence exists in its own records. </p>.<p>The explanation that people with ‘House No. 0’ entries are homeless is unconvincing, as is the claim that making electoral videos public would violate the right to privacy. There was no satisfactory response to the demand for machine-readable electoral rolls. Specific questions about the deletion and addition of names in the Bihar voters’ lists during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision were also ignored.</p>.<p>The Commission objected to Gandhi’s “vote chori” phrasing, terming it improper and misleading. It was when lapses were noted in the Commission’s functioning, and it was seen as soft on the government and the ruling party and harsh on the Opposition, that it started attracting criticism. </p>.<p>There can’t be a compromise on transparency and accountability in the Commission’s functioning. The CEC denied having discriminated between the ruling and Opposition parties, but its actions have left the Opposition and large sections of the public with that perception. It was for the CEC to set the record straight. Instead, the media interaction ended up adding credence to the charges.</p>
<p>In his media conference on Sunday, Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar failed to respond convincingly to allegations made by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi about voter-list anomalies in Bengaluru’s Mahadevapura constituency, and the general conduct of the Commission. Questions have also been raised by others on the processes followed by the Commission. </p>.<p>The Commission, it was expected, would respond to these concerns with credible explanations. Instead, Kumar made broad denials, took a combative position, and made unnecessary comments. The Commission asked Gandhi to produce the proof of his charges on affidavit or render an apology. What power does the CEC have to set deadlines, lay down conditions, and seek an apology from a political leader, a citizen who has raised questions about the Commission’s conduct? </p>.<p>Rule 20(3)(b), which was invoked for this demand, does not apply to Gandhi’s case. It needs to be noted that the Commission did not demand an affidavit from BJP leader Anurag Thakur, who claimed that similar irregularities occurred in constituencies won by the Congress. The language and the tone used by the CEC did not align with the conduct of a constitutional functionary. Kumar sounded more political than constitutional, preconceived rather than receptive, and dismissive rather than understanding.</p>.<p>The CEC maintained that the claims of large-scale voter-list manipulation, through ‘House No. 0’ entries or duplicate names, were exaggerated and that parties had the opportunity to flag genuine errors before the rolls were finalised. But the inflated voters’ list that Gandhi presented is no exaggeration. The Commission asked for evidence, while the evidence exists in its own records. </p>.<p>The explanation that people with ‘House No. 0’ entries are homeless is unconvincing, as is the claim that making electoral videos public would violate the right to privacy. There was no satisfactory response to the demand for machine-readable electoral rolls. Specific questions about the deletion and addition of names in the Bihar voters’ lists during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision were also ignored.</p>.<p>The Commission objected to Gandhi’s “vote chori” phrasing, terming it improper and misleading. It was when lapses were noted in the Commission’s functioning, and it was seen as soft on the government and the ruling party and harsh on the Opposition, that it started attracting criticism. </p>.<p>There can’t be a compromise on transparency and accountability in the Commission’s functioning. The CEC denied having discriminated between the ruling and Opposition parties, but its actions have left the Opposition and large sections of the public with that perception. It was for the CEC to set the record straight. Instead, the media interaction ended up adding credence to the charges.</p>
