MAHATMA GANDHI WROTE in Young India on June 18, 1931 that among the manifold aspects of Swaraj, adult suffrage constituted a key aspect which he interpreted as a form of direct action of people against powers that be. Manipulation of the electoral rolls leading to vote theft fatally impairs people’ ability to directly act against those wielding power.
While moving article 289 (now Article 324) of the draft Constitution on June 15, 1949, providing that superintendence, direction and control of elections to be vested in an Election Commission, B.R. Ambedkar warned that no injustice should be done by the Election Commission of India while preparing electoral roll and any thing contrary to it would “….cut at the very root of democratic government.”
Juxtapose the aforementioned vision of Gandhi and Ambedkar with the devastating expose of Indian Express concerning unilateral and unconstitutional action of the Chief Election Commissioner(CEC) Gyanesh Kumar regarding voter registration, deletion and restoration of names and access to electoral-roll data. The expose stunningly reveals that Gyanesh Kumar as CEC violated the constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 324 and law established by Supreme Court in T N Seshan v Union of India (1995) by not enlisting the participation of two other Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, in the decision making process. On crucial issues concerning SIR the two Election Commissioners registered their written objections 14 times in 10 months and yet CEC Kumar defiantly violated the prescribed mandate that the Commission would take decisions either on the basis of consensus or by majority principle.
All the Election Commissioners are equal in status with the Chief Election Commissioner who is first among equals. So decisions of the Commission are mandatorily to be taken either on the principle of consensus or by majority principle. It is shocking that the CEC Kumar trampled upon the Constitution and law by keeping away Commissioners from key decision making processes concerning preparation of electoral rolls and other related aspects. According to the Supreme Court in T N Seshan v Union of India (1995) Article 324 entrusts elections to the Election Commission, not to an individual. Its warning that “It would be wrong to project the individual and eclipse the Election Commission” resonates in the context of CEC Kumar taking all key decisions concerning SIR and pushing two Election Commissioners to oblivion.
