00:00I am now being joined by Abhishek Manu Singhvi.
00:04Let me bring in Dr. Singhvi now.
00:07He is a fifth term sitting member of parliament,
00:10a former chair of Parliamentary Standing Committee on Law,
00:14Home Affairs and Commerce and member of the Congress Working Committee.
00:17Dr. Singhvi, you have cited the 1995 Supreme Court ruling
00:22that the CEC is only first among equals.
00:25But if the other two election commissioners,
00:28that is, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi disagreed,
00:33why didn't either commissioner file formal dissent or resign
00:38rather than leaving it to a newspaper report to surface?
00:44We live in troubled times.
00:47It is no answer for an autocratic CEC or a runaway EC
00:53which has been hijacked by one man to say
00:56that because there is written objection,
00:59because the objection says illegal, unauthorized,
01:01because I have not bothered to reply to the objection,
01:04but unless they resign or they take some other drastic action,
01:09I will ignore them.
01:10Point one.
01:12Point two.
01:14Perhaps the chief election commissioner has read or possibly in all probability
01:18not read the Supreme Court judgment.
01:20Mr. Session raised exactly the same argument
01:23which de facto the current CEC is implementing.
01:26The argument was that the CEC has primacy over and above the ECs.
01:32The Supreme Court, and I quoted it in my press conference,
01:36demolished that categorically they are set first among equals.
01:39Altogether, he must develop a convivial confidence in all of them.
01:44And there is absolute majority rule there.
01:48Thirdly, to my arithmetic, two out of three is a majority.
01:53Two out of three have given in writing.
01:55There is no reply to those letters.
01:58But here is an internal bulldozer of the commission.
02:02We have talked about external governmental bulldozers,
02:05which have bulldozed several of our constitutional and statutory bodies.
02:09But here is an internal bulldozer,
02:11which has hijacked and bulldozed its own EC from its own colleagues.
02:18And that cannot be the answer
02:21unless we are told that this was the reply given.
02:24And after the reply was given,
02:26everybody agreed in a third order.
02:29None of that has happened.
02:31So, this is nothing but, as I said, what about it?
02:34Two election commissioners here,
02:36Mr. Sandhu and Vivek Joshi,
02:37recorded 14 written objections over 10 months.
02:40Yet the ECI insists that every decision was unanimous.
02:44The Congress party is calling this cover-up.
02:47Isn't it equally possible that this is normal internal deliberation,
02:52which is now being weaponized?
02:57Somebody had the courage to put in public domain
02:59that letter X was written on August 13 by Sandhu and Joshi.
03:03Letter Y was written in May 2026 by the same two persons.
03:06They elicited these replies.
03:08And after these replies,
03:10they recorded the satisfaction in this manner.
03:12And the replies would have to show four things, Maria.
03:15It's important.
03:16The first reply,
03:17a reply to the first letter would show,
03:19look, there is no restriction of access to EROs.
03:23The allegation that the IT department of the EC
03:25does not allow its own EROs,
03:27unrestricted access,
03:29is wrong for the following reasons.
03:31Not the if-say-dixit or the diktat of the CEC.
03:36Not because the sovereign has spoken from the mountaintop
03:38and he must accept his word.
03:40Second, the letter would show,
03:42if at all this is produced ever,
03:44that Mr. CEC replied to the second objection,
03:48that form C,
03:50sorry, form 6,
03:51which requires your 18-year-old son,
03:55my 18-year-old son,
03:57before applying to state
04:00whether his father or grandfather
04:02or grandmother or mother
04:04were on an earlier SIR list,
04:07whether that is anywhere permitted by form 6.
04:10And whether form 6 was modified by the government,
04:13answer is no.
04:14Whether the EC can modify itself,
04:16answer is no.
04:16But did the EC ask all these people that,
04:20yes,
04:21all you 13 crores whom we have disenfranchised in the country,
04:25any of your children who now apply
04:26will be faced with this preliminary threshold objection
04:29that 13 crore of us have parents who have been disenfranchised,
04:32therefore we can't apply.
04:34Now, if I get a letter like that in response by the CEC,
04:37maybe I'll begin answering your question.
04:39But these generalities,
04:42these banal blanket denials,
04:45this speaking like a sovereign from the mountaintop,
04:47this exhibiting illusions of grandeur
04:51do not befit a constitutional functionary.
04:55Sir, the Election Commission in its press release says
04:58that differing views are normal deliberations,
05:01that every officer is also fully authorized
05:04to give suggestions.
05:06But if suggestions can simply be overruled
05:09and then called unanimous after the fact,
05:11what does dissent inside the ECI actually mean in practice?
05:17Dissent inside the ECI means
05:19that you suffer the fate of Lavasa.
05:22Dissent inside the ECI means
05:24that you are road rolled.
05:26Dissent inside the ECI means
05:28that your dissent is not replied to.
05:31Dissent inside the ECI means
05:32a new definition of majority
05:34which is that after the dissent
05:36simply noted in the files,
05:38it's consigned to the dustbin.
05:40Dissent, Maria,
05:42is not a matter of dustbin convenience.
05:46Dissent has to become part of your decision-making.
05:51But this is a new government,
05:53a new India,
05:54a new CEC
05:55with a new definition
05:56or sets of definitions
05:59which are worse than Alice in Wonderland
06:01which say I will define words
06:02as I think I want to define them.
06:05Okay, Dr. Singh,
06:05you have my last question.
06:06Since you have appeared in multiple SIR cases,
06:08the Election Commission
06:10has called this
06:12one part of the picture
06:13and has pointed to the much larger
06:16body of approvals.
06:17But transparency isn't a number game,
06:20Mr. Singhvi.
06:21If even one commissioner's objection
06:24was overridden without proper explanation,
06:27doesn't that undermine the credibility
06:28of everything else
06:30the commission claims was unanimous?
06:34You are broadly right.
06:36The commission,
06:37or rather,
06:38don't call it the commission.
06:39The commission is a collegiate body
06:40decided in specific terms
06:42by the Supreme Court
06:4330 years ago in 1995.
06:45Whenever you say commission,
06:46please amend your word
06:47to say CEC.
06:48Today in India,
06:49one man is speaking
06:50because he's an internal bulldozer
06:52who's backed by an external bulldozer
06:54in the government.
06:55And so the CEC today believes
06:58that 10 objections,
07:01sorry,
07:0114 objections in 10 months
07:04do not deserve a reply,
07:06do not deserve the disclosure of a reply,
07:08if any.
07:09And unless you disclose,
07:11it means there is no reply.
07:13And because by a variety of hooks
07:16and by crooks
07:17and more by crook
07:18and less by hook,
07:19you ultimately ride roughshod
07:21over the descents,
07:22the new definition of that
07:23is unanimity.
07:25All right,
07:26Dr. Abhishek Manu Singh,
07:27we appreciate your time.
07:28Thank you for joining us
07:29and sharing your views.
07:31Of course,
07:32there are several chapters
07:33yet to unfold in this story.
07:36That's all from me.
07:36We'll continue to track the story
07:38very, very closely.
07:39Thanks so much for watching.
