00:01All right, people, joining me right now is Mr. Ashok Lawasa, former election commissioner.
00:06Sir, thank you for taking the time out and joining us.
00:09My first question, Mr. Lawasa, is, you know, on the damning Indian Express report.
00:15And I just want to take you through the details of that.
00:18We're 14 times in 10 months.
00:21As per the report, two election commissioners, now two out of the three election commissioners,
00:26objected on record to the poll panel steps.
00:30I want to, you know, ask you, because the 2023 Act says the election commission should,
00:36as far as possible, function unanimously.
00:39If two of the three commissioners are not aware of decisions being taken,
00:44does this now raise concerns over the functioning of the election commission of India?
00:50Well, thank you, Preeti, for inviting me on your show.
00:54You see, one has to get to the bottom of all these things which have come out in the media.
01:00Whether both commissioners were unanimous on the same issues or they were taking different positions on different issues.
01:10Because the whole business of dissent is quite different.
01:14Dissent is when some agenda has been put up before the commission.
01:18Two persons have one view and one person has another view.
01:22That is dissent.
01:24But if an opinion has been expressed by somebody in a communication,
01:29whether election commission took note of that before arriving at a decision,
01:34that is for the election commission to explain by giving full facts and record.
01:41If, for example, there was a letter written by one of the commissioners expressing a certain view,
01:47whether that was taken into consideration,
01:49when was that matter considered,
01:52either in the commission's meeting or on the file,
01:55and whether eventually that commissioner agreed or not.
01:59Until all these details are available with full facts,
02:03it will be very difficult to make a comment on this.
02:06But what would be certainly intriguing is if two persons had one view,
02:13then obviously a contrary view could not prevail.
02:17How did that happen, if at all it did?
02:21Mr. Lawasa, at least with what the report says is that both the election commissioners objected on record.
02:29So it was on the objections or the dissent was on record.
02:32Having said that, I want to take you now to the latest statement
02:36that has been released by the election commission of India.
02:39And that statement has been signed by all three election commissioners,
02:43the two that had descended along with the CEC, Mr. Gyanesh Kumar,
02:49where they admit that, yes, there were differences,
02:52but the, you know, there might be differences,
02:55but decisions were taken unanimously.
02:58How does that add up?
03:00Well, I have not seen the clarification given,
03:04signed by all the three.
03:05But as I said, all the details should be placed in the public domain
03:11so that things are clear.
03:13It is quite possible that somebody had a certain viewpoint
03:17and eventually either he agreed with the others or he was overruled.
03:23It is all possible.
03:25But the point, Preeti, is this,
03:28that, for example, the issue of Form 6, which has been changed,
03:32even if all the three commissioners agreed,
03:36was it legal for them to change the Form 6
03:39without going through the necessary approval process?
03:43That is a question which is open.
03:46Whether the statutory authority given to the ERO,
03:51has that been in any way curtailed by the introduction of the ERO net?
03:57So that is a question.
03:58Because if the example given in the news media report of Goa,
04:04where the ERO felt constrained that he could not admit 97 people
04:09in spite of being sure about the eligibility,
04:13then that certainly is a problem.
04:15Mr. Lawasa, you speak of that there needs to be clarification
04:19on the dissent of the two election commissioners.
04:23What we do know, that there were 14 times that they did dissented on record.
04:29The clarification needs to be sought,
04:31is what you are, you know, asked, what you are elucidating,
04:34that did both of them on the same issue dissent on a particular issue?
04:40And if that is the case,
04:42then the Act of 2023 becomes questionable
04:45because there has to be a unanimous decision.
04:48Exactly, exactly.
04:50But you see, Preeti, one should not forget the fact
04:55that all these controversies, so-called,
04:59are in relation to the special intensive revision exercise,
05:04which by itself is a very controversial decision.
05:08So people are facing a lot of difficulties about this.
05:12And now, if there is a viewpoint in the commission
05:16which was contrary to the decision which has been taken,
05:21then it actually gives credence to the difficulties
05:24that people are facing.
05:26Mr. Lawasa, in the Naveen Chawla and your case,
05:29the dissent was on a particular issue.
05:32How similar and how different do you read that to this?
05:36Because this seems to be on 14 issues
05:38where two election commissioners dissented.
05:42No, I don't think the two things are comparable at all
05:46for the simple reason that, as you yourself said,
05:51you see, when you are deciding on the model code of conduct,
05:55you are taking a causal judicial decision.
05:58And there, the full commission takes a decision
06:01and there somebody can express a different opinion
06:05which will fall in the category of dissent.
06:09In these issues, unless full details are available,
06:14we will not be able to see whether this was a dissent.
06:17And as I said, the large question which begs an answer
06:23is that if two persons had a view,
06:27how could a view contrary to their view
06:30be taken by the commission?
06:32That is for the ECI to explain.
06:35But, you know, there's another very big glaring issue in this report
06:40that the EC needs to answer, sir.
06:42Because the commission's strongest defense
06:44till now against all possible allegations
06:47of poll rigging by opposition
06:49has been that the role preparation is always centralized.
06:53But the report reveals that the two election commissioners
06:56called steps on new voters, unauthorized, illegal,
07:01warned against voter database access being centralized in Delhi.
07:05That flies against what at least the explanation
07:08EC has been giving us all along.
07:11You know, if you remember when the West Bengal issue was ripe,
07:14there were reports that many EROs and BLOs
07:18made a complaint that the notices that were being issued
07:23were being issued centralized, in a centralized manner.
07:28Now, this is quite contrary to the way things ought to happen.
07:35And one should understand the distinction.
07:37According to the law,
07:39it is the sole authority of the ERO
07:42to admit or to delete somebody from the electoral roll.
07:46No one else has the authority
07:48unless you go and appeal to the DEO or the CO
07:52or eventually to the court.
07:54But Election Commission of India
07:55has no jurisdiction
07:57in deciding on the fate of an elector
08:01whether he should be in or out.
08:04Therefore,
08:05it is the ERO which exercises
08:08the entire jurisdiction.
08:10Now, if you create a centralized data bank,
08:14which is good.
08:15I am not against creation of a centralized data bank.
08:18But the point is that
08:20the legally authorized person
08:22must have access
08:24to his limited jurisdiction
08:27so that he can modify
08:29the electoral roll according to law.
08:33He cannot face a situation
08:35where he has to depend on a third authority
08:39to give this effect to his decision
08:42because ultimately it is his responsibility
08:45to maintain the purity and integrity
08:48of the electoral roll.
08:50Mr. Lawasa,
08:51the objections that have been raised
08:53pretty much go to the core
08:54of the Election Commission of India's mandate
08:57from new voter registration and deletion
09:00or restoration of names
09:02to appeals under SIR
09:03and the custody and security
09:05of the electoral database.
09:07Two ECs have reportedly told
09:09the Cabinet Secretary
09:10that changes in work allocation
09:13had removed a layer of oversight
09:15over the IT backbone
09:18without their knowledge.
09:20Now, this raises larger questions
09:22about adequate checks and balances, sir.
09:26Yeah, that's all right.
09:27There have to be checks and balances
09:29and I think
09:29if any election commissioner
09:31was suggesting
09:32an additional layer of oversight,
09:35he was acting
09:38on the side of
09:39greater accountability
09:41and supervision.
09:42So nothing wrong with that.
09:44In fact, what is intriguing
09:45in this whole thing
09:46is that
09:46why should any election commissioner
09:49write about this
09:50to the Cabinet Secretary?
09:52Because the Cabinet Secretary
09:53has nothing to do with the working
09:55of the Election Commission.
09:56So that is a further
09:57intriguing aspect
09:59on why they decided
10:00to write to the Cabinet Secretary.
10:03I think on this account also
10:06EC needs to clarify.
10:08You've often said, Mr. Lawasa,
10:10that the SIR process
10:12might be legal
10:13but it is not fair.
10:16Do you think the latest report
10:18bolsters the same claim?
10:21It does.
10:22And also, Preeti,
10:23don't forget the fact
10:24that just two, three days back
10:26ECI submitted an affidavit
10:28in the Supreme Court
10:29in which they said
10:30that 38 lakh appeals
10:32were filed
10:33against
10:34the West Bengal deletions.
10:37Now,
10:37if 38 lakh appeals
10:39were filed,
10:41only
10:42one lakh,
10:43some 30,000
10:44have been decided.
10:45But the important thing
10:46is that 93%
10:47were decided
10:48in favor of the people
10:50whose names
10:51were wrongfully deleted.
10:52I think it's a
10:53scathing criticism
10:55judicially
10:55for the process
10:57that was being followed
10:58by the Electoral Commission.
11:00There is another layer
11:01of intrigue
11:03in this
11:03and that is
11:04if 16 lakh
11:06appeals
11:07have been filed
11:07for deleting
11:09those names
11:10which are
11:11judiciously
11:12and
11:13due process,
11:14following the due process,
11:15admitted in the
11:16electoral roll,
11:17then who has filed
11:18all these appeals?
11:20Were they filed
11:21under the authority
11:21of the Election Commission?
11:23Or was it filed
11:24by someone else
11:25who was authorized
11:26to file these appeals?
11:27There has never been
11:28in the history
11:29of the preparation
11:31of electoral roll
11:32any instance
11:32where in a single state
11:3416 lakh appeals
11:36would be filed
11:37after the preparation
11:38of the final electoral roll.
11:40So,
11:41all this
11:41calls for
11:42a lot of
11:44clarification
11:44to begin with.
11:45Along with the question
11:46where you raise
11:47of 16 lakh additions
11:48and appeals
11:49against those
11:50filed in
11:51the state
11:52of West Bengal,
11:53there are other
11:53questions as well.
11:54Because if there
11:55are new voters,
11:56why was
11:57Form 6 changed?
11:58It's a question
11:59that beckons
12:00to be asked
12:00at the back
12:01of this report.
12:02Who should have
12:03access to the
12:03voter list?
12:04On whose order?
12:05And why was
12:06the local
12:06ERO's involvement
12:07in it reduced?
12:09Once again,
12:10on the question
12:10of 16.10 lakh
12:12voters in Bengal
12:13that were added
12:14and appeals
12:15against them,
12:16even after
12:17it was reported
12:17that there was
12:18a glitch
12:18in the software.
12:20Mr. Lavasa,
12:21why was no action
12:21taken on it?
12:22Did the result
12:23lead to genuine
12:24voter names
12:25being deleted?
12:25So many questions
12:26that beckon answers.
12:29I agree with you
12:30entirely,
12:31but I'm not the one
12:32to answer those questions.
12:33Yes, sir.
12:34It's up to the
12:34election commission
12:35that needs to answer
12:36the question.
12:37Thank you for
12:38taking the time out
12:39and joining us
12:40this afternoon.
12:41Appreciated,
12:42Mr. Lavasa.
12:42Thank you, sir.
12:43Thank you very much.
