Need to repair the Nirvachan Vachan

Set up in 1950, Election Commission has, over the decades, earned a reputation as one of India's most credible and trusted institutions. This week, that credibility has come under severe strain. An Indian Express investigation has revealed an unprecedented internal rift within the 3-member EC, with commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recording at least 14 objections in 10 mths to decisions taken under chief commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The report raises three questions that go beyond SIR. Who is taking key decisions? Who controls the electoral roll? Under what authority are consequential changes being made?

EC is not just another public institution where differences can be settled behind closed doors. It is the constitutional authority entrusted with the integrity of the electoral process - and, ultimately, with ensuring that eligible citizens can exercise their right to vote. The significance lies not in whether every objection raised by the two ECs is found to be valid. Institutions can, and should, have differences of opinion. Indeed, EC has stated that differing views are a normal part of institutional decision-making, and that all decisions were unanimous. But that response sidesteps some core issues. It had not publicly shared the existence of these memos. Neither had it explained who authorised changes to Form 6, who directed filing of the SIR deletion appeals in West Bengal, or why Goa EROs were unable to amend electoral rolls.

Cleaning up electoral rolls is a legitimate and necessary exercise. But the legitimacy of the exercise depends as much on the process as on its objective. Excluding an eligible voter - when EC has maintained that its aim is to ensure that no voter is left out - cannot be treated as an administrative snafu. EC now needs to do more than deny a rift. It must answer the questions raised. Ultimately, if these allegations of procedural bypass and unauthorised directives are found to be true, someone will have to take responsibility for the erosion of public trust for it to be restored.