Express Investigation: The unprecedented rift within the Election Commission

3 Things

An investigation into an unprecedented internal rift within India's Election Commission, where two commissioners have formally objected to d

Key takeaways

• Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandlu and Vivek Joshi formally objected to unauthorized EC decisions at least 14 times over 10 months.
• The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) resulted in the removal of over 13 crore names from electoral rolls across 30 states and UTs.

Main topics

• Internal rift in the Election Commission
• Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls

Notable quotes

The two even wrote to the cabinet secretary complaining about these changes.

Conclusion

The investigation highlights a breakdown in the consensus-based operat

Transcript preview

Speaker 2 (0:00) Ever since the special intensive revision began in Bihar last year, the exercise has resulted in more than 13 crore names being removed from the draft electoral rolls across 30 states and union territories. And this has placed the Election Commission, which is in charge of conducting free and fair elections, at the centre of an intense public debate over its role in determining who gets to vote and who doesn't. Several people have not only questioned the manner in which this exercise is being conducted, but have also questioned its legality. Now, an investigation by the Indian Express published earlier this week reveals that some of these questions were also raised within the three-member election commission. And they were actually raised by two of the three election commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. Both Sandhu and Joshi formally objected on record at least 14 times over the last 10 months to decisions taken by the EC, some of which they said were unauthorized and illegal. And they also objected to orders they said had been issued without their knowledge. In fact, the two even wrote to the cabinet secretary complaining about these changes. So today, we are dedicating this episode to discussing this unprecedented rift within the EC. with the Indian Express's Hrithika Chopra, who investigated the story for the paper. Speaker 2 (1:39) Ritika, EC is this three-member body, right? How unusual is it that decisions were being taken without the knowledge of these two other members? Speaker 1 (1:50) Okay, so for the benefit of the listeners here, just quickly. So the election commission is a body made of three members, a chief election commissioner and two election commissioners. Currently, the chief election commissioners Gyanesh Kumar, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi are the two election commissioners on the panel. So how they operate, at least according to the 2023 Act, according to law, the commission is supposed to operate unanimously, at least make decisions unanimously. And wherever, let's say there's some form of difference of opinion, they decide by majority. Now, by majority, what we mean is that if two out of the three members of the commission feel a certain way, they prevail. What's interesting is that, say, even if the chief election commissioner is the odd one out here and say the two election commissioners are on one side, whatever they say, the two election commissioner goes. Speaker 2 (2:41) Okay, so it's not like his vote or his opinion matters more than the other two. Speaker 1 (2:46) So I understand where that impression could come from purely because Gyanesh Kumar is the chief election commissioner. You have the word chief in his job title. Speaker 2 (2:54) Yeah, that almost makes it seem like he's the boss of the two. Speaker 1 (2:58) Yes, but the law is very clear that they are equals. They all enjoy the stature of a Supreme Court judge. But the CEC is the first among equals. But in a meeting, when they are discussing issues, important issues, and let's say if it comes to, you know, the matter literally going to vote, any two of the three will prevail, irrespective of whether it's the CEC, the Chief Election Commissioner, who's amongst the two, or whether he is, say, the odd one out. Speaker 2 (3:29) Right. And it's also unusual because Their colleagues, like surely before putting these objections down on record, they must have confronted him, right? Like, do we know anything about that? Speaker 1 (3:41) So this is something I kind of do want to put on record. And again, hopefully, if it helps the listeners understand this better, that in the past, the practice has been, the law doesn't say much about this sort of a gray area, but the practice in the commission has been that it's kind of the onus of taking everyone along is on the chief election commissioner. That's what we've seen in the past. So very difficult to say whether they tried confronting him. I would presume if that happened, that would have happened, you know, when it was just the three of them Speaker 2 (4:12) in the room. But Speaker 1 (4:13) what we do know and what was very evident to officers within the commission is that the three were not talking because there was no commission, full commission meeting for almost. four months which frankly is a lot of time the commission even during what they call as peace time in Rajan Southern that is when there are no elections they still tend to have commission meetings maybe you don't transact a lot of business in that meetings but that kind of happens unless people are traveling whatever but to not have commission meetings for four months and especially at a time when the SIR is going on you know it's not as if it wasn't technically peacetime for them because the election commission is undertaking this sort of very intensive revision of the electoral law on such a huge scale, more than two decades after more than 20 years. So during that process for the commission to not sit formally is actually a bit odd. Speaker 2 (5:03) And before we started recording, you were telling me that both Sandhu and Joshi were telling deputy election commissioners, these senior civil servants who work in the commission that look, there are these statements that the commission is putting out in the public, but we don't know anything about that. Speaker 1 (5:20) To my mind, why this stands out is because and which is why I explained first that how decisions actually made in the commission. Honestly, it was quite interesting and curious for me to see that, you know, in this case, two of the three commissioners, sometimes individually and sometimes sort of acting in concert, they would write and they were mostly asking about what's happening. you know so when i say what's happening of course i'm paraphrasing it but say sometimes it would manifest in shape of a note written by vivek joshi saying that i see a lot of statements issued in the name of the commission but i have no idea so what happened you know and and then not just that but for them to insist that make sure this doesn't happen make sure the law is followed and as we've discussed the law is that keep the commission in the loop, all three in the loop, and then you decide unanimously or by majority. So, P. Singh Sandhu wrote a similar note as well, asking that I see a lot of communications issued in the name of the commission when the commission was not apprised of any of this. So, what is happening? And please make sure it doesn't happen again. So, it kind of starts with such notes, at least the exchanges that we have seen, and it kind of progressively, at least the language of these notes kind of tend to get You can kind of, I would say the tension a bit is palpable when you're reading it and kind of progressively at one point you can see that the two seem to have, I don't know if I can say, but seem to have had enough where they're trying to assert themselves now asking that, you know, because you can see them right in these notes that we've discussed this. This has been discussed in the past. Of course, there's no written record of that. I'm presuming these are oral discussions that we've discussed in the past. happening despite us telling you not to do it. Why did this happen? Speaker 2 (6:56) Right. And eventually, like we mentioned earlier, both Joshi and Sandhu wrote separately to the cabinet secretary raising these concerns. And the issue was that they were being kept in the dark and that a number of things that the commission was doing was not legal. So let's talk about what these things were. Now, one of them was about who counts as a new voter. And Here we'll talk about the Form 6. Form 6 is the one that is used for enrolling new voters. And the new Form 6, it asks a question that was never there earlier. And this question is whether they or their parents or grandparents exist in the electoral role of the last SIR. Can you talk about what the issue is here? Why did they object to this? Speaker 1 (7:51) See, like you rightly mentioned that usually if you either want to come back onto the electoral rolls for whatever reasons you were deleted or you turn 18 and you want to become a voter now, you fill Form 6. Form 6 is a statutory form. What do we mean by that? This is essentially a form prescribed by law. It's actually in law, mentioned. So office and the content of it actually is it emanates from a set of rules called the Registration of Electoral Rules, 1960. So anything that emanates from a law or rules, you know, obviously, if you want to change it, you will have to ideally amend the source. And here, of course, the source being the rules or the law. So because form 6 is one of the many statutory forms, there's form 6, you know, for instance, there's form 8. If you've moved residences, you fill form 8. So these are set of forms, statutory forms prescribed by law when a proposal came. And this is around the time when SIR was gathering pace in the sense. So when a proposal came that even as we ask existing electors to prove whether they or their relatives were there on the electoral row of the last SIR, maybe we should now start asking that same question of people who are now trying to come or become a voter for the first time, which is the people who are filling Form 6. When that proposal came, interestingly, I think this was sometime in May, if I'm not wrong, Vivek Joshi made a noting saying that Not exactly opposing the idea, but saying if you have to do it, you have to the legally sustainable way. And I'm quoting him would be to actually amend the rule. Right. Which is what has happened even in the past. So Speaker 2 (9:33) even just to add one question