The has formally submitted a to the of India, clarifying the administrative processes behind the filing of approximately 16.10 lakh appeals concerning voter roll inclusions in West Bengal. This disclosure follows a contentious petition that questioned the and decision-making transparency surrounding the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in the state. By detailing the chain of command and reliance on previous , the poll body seeks to address allegations that the Chief Election Commissioner acted unilaterally in executing these massive revisions.
The affidavit, filed by Deputy Election Commissioner Bhanu Prakash Yeturu on behalf of the Commission, explicitly states that the controversial appeals were not initiated directly by the central . Instead, these filings were conducted by officers within the , acting in their official capacity under the . The Commission maintained that this was a rather than a high-level policy decision requiring direct intervention from the Chief Election Commissioner or the other election commissioners.
Navigating the Chain of Administrative Authority
The central issue regarding the 16.10 lakh appeals stemmed from a perceived lack of transparency in the authorization process. Critics argued that such a significant volume of litigation against voter inclusions required a centralized, unanimous approval from the full Commission. The ’s affidavit effectively counters this, relying on a specific communication dated , from the West Bengal Chief Electoral Officer.
In its response, the Commission emphasized that the appellate officers were merely exercising their as established under the Representation of the People Act. These roles, including , , and , possess the inherent authority to challenge inclusions that they deem inconsistent with the verified records. To bolster this position, the cited orders from , and , which acknowledged the right of authorities to appeal against inclusions that might be considered erroneous by adjudicating officers.
The affidavit points out that these judicial orders explicitly recognized that would have to process appeals filed by individuals excluded from the rolls alongside those filed by the Commission’s own authorities. By grounding their actions in these precedents, the Election Commission argues that the filings were not only legally permissible but also consistent with the established by the to ensure the integrity of the voter rolls. The Commission further clarified that because the appeals fell within the scope of routine , the specific matters were never required to be placed before the members of the Election Commission for individual deliberation.
Addressing Claims of Unilateral Decision-Making
Beyond the procedural question of the 16.10 lakh appeals, the ’s response addresses the broader allegations of leveled against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The petition challenging the Commission’s conduct suggested that 14 distinct decisions related to the Special Intensive Revision were finalized in the name of the Chief Election Commissioner despite recorded disagreements from Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
The Commission has categorically denied these claims, asserting that all key decisions were taken unanimously by the three-member body. The affidavit highlights that the primary orders issued between and , which scheduled and structured the intensive revision, were the result of . The Commission described the effort to portray internal queries or suggestions as signs of organizational discord as a "misconceived" narrative. According to the affidavit, the administrative structure of the Commission is designed to facilitate discussion, and not every comment or suggestion raised during these deliberations can be equated to a formal disagreement or a .
Clarifying the Status of
A significant portion of the controversy surrounded the alleged amendment of Form 6, the standard document for voter registration. The petition alleged that the Election Commission had improperly modified this form to facilitate the revision process, effectively bypassing the role of the , which holds the to amend forms prescribed under the .
In its defense, the Election Commission clarified that no such amendment had occurred. The poll body maintained that the "declaration" challenged by the petitioners was an independent document incorporated as an annexure to facilitate the mapping of applicants to previous versions of the electoral roll. This measure, the Commission argued, was intended to streamline the registration process by reducing the burden on applicants to provide repetitive documentation.
The affidavit states, “The amended declaration was a measure that would enable the person seeking registration as a voter to dispense with the need for filing documents during the .” By segregating the application into two components—the statutory Form 6 and a rationalized declaration—the Commission asserts it maintained full compliance with the statutory rules while improving the IT platform’s functionality. From , the Commission has further bifurcated the online process to mirror the physical submission procedure, a move intended to prevent any further confusion regarding the statutory status of the documents involved.
As the litigation proceeds, the is now tasked with weighing the Commission’s detailed record-keeping against the petitioner’s claims of procedural irregularity. The current status of the matter remains in the , with the Court having sought responses from the poll body to determine whether further investigation into the Commission’s internal decision-making processes is required. For now, the Election Commission maintains that its actions were strictly confined to the mandates of the Constitution and the governing statutes, leaving the final to the Court’s assessment of the provided records.
electoral roll revision - voter registration dispute - appellate tribunal authority - administrative accountability - election commission affidavit
