Ashok Lavasa says EC must regain public trust amid SIR controversy

A Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, is a detailed exercise to verify and update electoral rolls. It can add eligible voters, correct records, and remove names that do not meet legal requirements. The article says the Election Commission has conducted special revisions before under the Representation of the People Act and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. The current exercise matters because it has created unusually high public anxiety.

The controversy centres on how voters are being assessed. Ashok Lavasa said electors were being placed into three age groups based on their dates of birth under the Citizenship Act. He argued that the process appeared focused on excluding people suspected of not being Indian citizens, rather than including eligible voters based on evidence. In West Bengal, nearly 60 lakh people's voting rights went under adjudication.

The Commission says its orders have legal sanction and follow statutory procedures. The dispute now concerns whether decisions are fair, transparent, and timely before the Assembly elections. Around 33 lakh names were restored after adjudication, but other names remained excluded from draft rolls or under review.

Ashok Lavasa said the Election Commission must restore its credibility and regain people's trust. He described its position as exceptionally important among public institutions. His central concern was that controversy surrounding the SIR could make citizens doubt whether elections were being managed fairly. He compared the situation with cricket: if the umpire is seen as biased, people may question even the winning team's victory.

His criticism followed protests by opposition parties over alleged vote theft and irregularities in the SIR. Opposition leaders demanded the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. They also protested in New Delhi, where some clashes with police occurred. Lavasa referred to a report that commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had objected at least 14 times to decisions they said were issued without their knowledge.

Lavasa also criticised the lack of publicly available meeting minutes. He said this made it hard to know whether decisions were unanimous or taken by majority. The Commission responded that differing views are normal, and that its orders follow statutory procedures. Lavasa said its explanations had not resolved public doubts.

The article gives two major figures for West Bengal. Nearly 60 lakh people's voting rights went under adjudication during the SIR exercise. This figure excludes voters whose names were left out of the draft electoral rolls. Adjudication means their eligibility was still being examined rather than finally accepted or rejected.

The scale mattered because Assembly elections were approaching. Ashok Lavasa questioned whether the Election Commission could examine such a large number of cases in time. He said the Commission had not adequately considered the difficulty of deciding all these cases before voting. A name under review can therefore create uncertainty about whether a person will be able to vote when the election arrives.

The article also reports that around 33 lakh names were restored after adjudication. That restoration shows that many challenged or questioned entries were subsequently returned to the rolls. However, the article does not state the final status of every person included in the nearly 60 lakh figure. It separately notes that some people were excluded from draft rolls.

The electoral roll is the official list used to identify people entitled to vote. If a person's name is excluded and the decision is not reversed, that person generally cannot cast a vote in the election. The article frames this as a serious concern because voting rights may be lost during a large and time-sensitive revision exercise.

A person whose name remains under adjudication has not received a final resolution. If the case is not decided, or the name is not restored before the relevant election procedures close, the person may be unable to vote. The article does not describe every legal remedy or deadline, so the exact outcome can depend on the applicable process. It does report that around 33 lakh names were restored after adjudication.

Lavasa warned that West Bengal's nearly 60 lakh cases created a practical problem because Assembly elections were nearby. The Commission's ability to decide cases promptly therefore affects whether eligible citizens can exercise their rights. The wider implication is that roll revisions must protect accuracy without leaving genuine voters in unresolved limbo.

The Election Commission makes decisions through its commissioners and officers. The article says the nationwide SIR was overseen by the full Commission, consisting of three commissioners. The Commission maintains that differing views and observations are normal during institutional deliberations. It also says all three commissioners and its officers could offer suggestions to improve the electoral system.

The concern is not simply that disagreements existed. A report cited by Lavasa said Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi objected on record at least 14 times to decisions and orders they said had been issued without their knowledge. Lavasa also noted that meeting minutes were not publicly available. Without them, citizens cannot easily establish whether important decisions were unanimous or approved by a majority.

This uncertainty can damage trust, especially during a contested voter-roll revision. The Commission says its orders carry full legal sanction and follow established statutory procedures. Lavasa argued that press statements had not authentically clarified the reported differences. Transparent records could help people understand how decisions were reached and assess the process more confidently.

Article 326, as described in the article, requires the Election Commission to enrol Indian citizens who are at least 18 years old, unless they are of unsound mind or disqualified under a law. Lavasa said this constitutional principle places an inclusion duty on the Commission. He criticised what he viewed as a shift toward excluding people suspected of not being citizens without sufficient evidence.

The article says the Election Commission has previously conducted special electoral-roll revisions under the Representation of the People Act and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. These laws and rules provide the statutory framework for maintaining and revising rolls. The article does not list every procedure or eligibility test contained in them. It does say the Commission considers its current orders legally authorised.

The dispute is therefore about how those frameworks are being applied in the SIR. Lavasa said the exercise used three age categories based on dates of birth under the Citizenship Act. The Commission says its process follows established statutory procedures. The key issue is whether revision protects constitutional voting eligibility while checking inaccurate entries.

An election authority is essential because voters must trust that the rules are applied fairly to everyone. The authority oversees the electoral process, including the rolls that determine who can vote. If citizens believe it favours one side, they may doubt not only the process but also the legitimacy of the final result. Fairness must therefore be visible as well as claimed.

Lavasa used a cricket comparison to explain this mechanism. If people think the umpire is not neutral, they will question the winning team's victory. He applied the same logic to elections. In the article, controversy over the SIR, alleged vote theft, reported disagreements among commissioners, and missing meeting minutes all became reasons for public doubt about the Commission's impartiality.

The Commission says its orders have full legal sanction and follow statutory procedures. Lavasa nevertheless urged it to regain credibility and public trust. The forward implication is clear: transparent decisions, credible explanations, and confidence that eligible voters are included are vital for people to accept election outcomes.