00:00First up, let me quickly cut across to the big exclusive, or rather, the conversation that I had from the
00:07newsroom a short while ago.
00:17Joining me right now is Mr. Ashok Lavasa, former election commissioner.
00:21Sir, thank you for taking the time out and joining us.
00:24My first question, Mr. Lavasa, is, you know, on the damning Indian Express report, and I just want to take
00:31you through the details of that,
00:33where 14 times in 10 months, as per the report, two election commissioners, now, two out of the three election
00:40commissioners,
00:41objected on record to the poll panel steps.
00:44I want to, you know, ask you, because the 2023 Act says the election commission should, as far as possible,
00:52function unanimously.
00:54If two of the three commissioners are not aware of decisions being taken, does this now raise concerns over the
01:01functioning of the election commission of India?
01:05Well, thank you, Preeti, for inviting me on your show.
01:09You see, one has to get to the bottom of all these things which have come out in the media.
01:16Whether both commissioners were unanimous on the same issues, or they were taking different positions on different issues.
01:25Because the whole business of dissent is quite different.
01:29Dissent is when some agenda has been put up before the commission, two persons have one view, and one person
01:36has another view.
01:37That is dissent.
01:39But if an opinion has been expressed by somebody in a communication,
01:44whether election commission took note of that before arriving at a decision,
01:49that is for the election commission to explain by giving full facts and record.
01:56If, for example, there was a letter written by one of the commissioners expressing a certain view,
02:01whether that was taken into consideration, when was that matter considered,
02:07either in the commission's meeting or on the file, and whether eventually that commissioner agreed or not.
02:14Until all these details are available with full facts, it will be very difficult to make a comment on this.
02:22But what would be certainly intriguing is, if two persons had one view,
02:28then obviously a contrary view could not prevail.
02:32How did that happen, if at all it did?
02:36Mr. Lawasa, at least with what the report says is that both the election commissioners objected on record.
02:43So it was on the objections or the dissent was on record.
02:47Having said that, I want to take you now to the latest statement that has been released by the Election
02:52Commission of India.
02:54And that statement has been signed by all three election commissioners,
02:58the two that had descended along with the CEC, Mr. Gyanesh Kumar,
03:03where they admit that, yes, there were differences, but, you know, there might be differences,
03:10but decisions were taken unanimously.
03:13How does that add up?
03:15Well, I have not seen the clarification given, signed by all the three.
03:21But as I said, all the details should be placed in the public domain so that things are clear.
03:28It is quite possible that somebody had a certain viewpoint and eventually either he agreed with the others or he
03:37was overruled.
03:38It is all possible.
03:40But the point, Preeti, is this, that, for example, the issue of Form 6, which has been changed,
03:48even if all the three commissioners agreed,
03:51was it legal for them to change the Form 6 without going through the necessary approval process?
03:58That is a question which is open.
04:01Whether the statutory authority given to the ERO,
04:06has that been in any way curtailed by the introduction of the ERO net?
04:12So that is a question.
04:13Because if the example given in the news media report of Goa,
04:19where the ERO felt constrained that he could not admit 97 people,
04:24in spite of being sure about the eligibility,
04:28then that certainly is a problem.
04:30Mr. Lawasa, you speak of that there needs to be clarification on the dissent of the two election commissioners.
04:38What we do know that there were 14 times that they did dissented on record.
04:43The clarification needs to be sought is what you are, you know,
04:47what you are elucidating that did both of them on the same issue dissent on a particular issue.
04:55And if that is the case, then the Act of 2023 becomes questionable because there has to be a unanimous
05:02decision.
05:03Exactly, exactly.
05:06But you see, Preeti, one should not forget the fact that all these controversies, so-called,
05:14are in relation to the special intensive revision exercise,
05:19which by itself is a very controversial decision.
05:23So people are facing a lot of difficulties about this.
05:27And now, if there is a viewpoint in the commission which was contrary to the decision which has been taken,
05:36then it actually gives credence to the difficulties that people are facing.
05:41Mr. Lawasa, in the Naveen Chawla and your case, the dissent was on a particular issue.
05:47How similar and how different do you read that to this?
05:51Because this seems to be on 14 issues where two election commissioners dissented.
05:57No, I don't think the two things are comparable at all.
06:01For the simple reason that, as you yourself said,
06:06you see, when you are deciding on the model code of conduct,
06:10you are taking a quasi-judicial decision.
06:13And there, the full commission takes a decision,
06:16and there somebody can express a different opinion,
06:20which will fall in the category of dissent.
06:24In these issues, unless full details are available,
06:29we will not be able to see whether this was a dissent.
06:32And as I said, the large question which begs an answer is that
06:39if two persons had a view,
06:42how could a view contrary to their view be taken by the commission?
06:47That is for the ECI to explain.
06:51But, you know, there's another very big glaring issue in this report
06:55that the EC needs to answer, sir.
06:57Because the commission's strongest defense
06:59till now against all possible allegations of poll rigging by opposition
07:04has been that the role preparation is always centralized.
07:08But the report reveals that the two election commissioners
07:11called steps on new voters, unauthorized, illegal,
07:16warned against voter database access being centralized in Delhi.
07:20That flies against what at least the explanation
07:23EC has been giving us all along.
07:25You know, if you remember when the West Bengal issue was ripe,
07:30there were reports that many EROs and BLOs
07:33made a complaint that the notices that were being issued
07:38were being issued centralized, in a centralized manner.
07:43Now, this is quite contrary to the way things ought to happen.
07:50And one should understand the distinction.
07:52According to the law, it is the sole authority of the ERO
07:57to admit or to delete somebody from the electoral roll.
08:01No one else has the authority unless you go and appeal to the DEO
08:06or the CO or eventually to the court.
08:09But Election Commission of India has no jurisdiction
08:12in deciding on the fate of an elector
08:16whether he should be in or out.
08:20Therefore, it is the ERO which exercises the entire jurisdiction.
08:25Now, if you create a centralized data bank, which is good,
08:30I am not against creation of a centralized data bank.
08:33But the point is that the legally authorized person
08:37must have access to his limited jurisdiction
08:42so that he can modify the electoral roll according to law.
08:48He cannot face a situation where he has to depend on a third authority
08:54to give effect to his decision because ultimately it is his responsibility
09:00to maintain the purity and integrity of the electoral roll.
09:05Mr. Lavasa, the objections that have been raised pretty much go to the core
09:09of the Election Commission of India's mandate
09:12from new voter registration and deletion or restoration of names
09:17to appeals under SIR and the custody and security of the electoral database.
09:22Two ECs have reportedly told the Cabinet Secretary that changes in work allocation
09:28had removed a layer of oversight over the IT backbone without their knowledge.
09:35Now, this raises larger questions about adequate checks and balances, sir.
09:41Yeah, that's all right.
09:42There have to be checks and balances.
09:44And I think if any election commissioner was suggesting an additional layer of oversight,
09:50he was acting on the side of greater accountability and supervision.
09:57So nothing wrong with that.
09:59In fact, what is intriguing in this whole thing is that
10:02why should any election commissioner write about this to the Cabinet Secretary?
10:07Because the Cabinet Secretary has nothing to do with the working
10:10of the Election Commission.
10:11So that is a further intriguing aspect on why they decided to write to the Cabinet Secretary.
10:18I think on this account also, EC needs to clarify.
10:23You've often said, Mr. Lavasa, that the SIR process might be legal,
10:28but it is not fair.
10:31Do you think the latest report bolsters the same claim?
10:36It does.
10:37And also, Preeti, don't forget the fact that just two, three days back,
10:42ECI submitted an affidavit in the Supreme Court,
10:44in which they said that 38 lakh appeals were filed against the West Bengal deletions.
10:52Now, if 38 lakh appeals were filed,
10:56only 1 lakh, some 30,000 have been decided.
11:00But the important thing is that 93% were decided in favor of the people
11:05whose names were wrongfully deleted.
11:07I think it's a scathing criticism, judicially,
11:11for the process that was being followed by the Election Commission.
11:15There is another layer of intrigue in this.
11:18And that is, if 16 lakh appeals have been filed for deleting those names
11:25which are judiciously and following the due process admitted in the electoral roll,
11:32then who has filed all these appeals?
11:35Were they filed under the authority of the Election Commission?
11:38Or was it filed by someone else who was authorized to file these appeals?
11:42There has never been in the history of the preparation of electoral roll
11:47any instance where, in a single state,
11:5016 lakh appeals would be filed after the preparation of the final electoral roll.
11:55So, all this calls for a lot of clarification to begin with.
12:00Along with the question where you raise of 16 lakh additions,
12:04you know, and appeals against those filed in the state of West Bengal,
12:08there are other questions as well.
12:09Because if there are new voters, why was Form 6 changed?
12:13It's a question that beckons to be asked at the back of this report.
12:17Who should have access to the voter list?
12:19On whose order?
12:20And why was the local ERO's involvement in it reduced?
12:24Once again, on the question of 16.10 lakh voters in Bengal
12:28that were added and appeals against them.
12:31Even after it was reported that there was a glitch in the software,
12:35Mr. Lavasa, why was no action taken on it?
12:37Did the result lead to genuine voter names being deleted?
12:40And so many questions that beckon answers.
12:44I agree with you entirely.
12:46But I'm not the one to answer those questions.
12:49It's up to the election commission that needs to answer the question.
12:52Thank you for taking the time out and joining us this afternoon.
12:56Appreciated, Mr. Lavasa.
12:57Thank you, sir.
12:58Thank you very much.
