The Election Commission Has Discovered That “Unanimous” Is a Wonderful Word
Fourteen objections, centralised control and disputed deletions later, democracy has been assured that everyone agreed.
The Election Commission has offered the country a reassuring lesson in institutional mathematics: two Election Commissioners can reportedly object at least 14 times over 10 months, including four times in one day, and the final decision can still be described as “unanimous”. This is not disagreement. It is disagreement with excellent paperwork.
Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar faces demands for resignation from Rahul Gandhi and other Opposition leaders, while the Commission’s defence is that internal deliberations may contain differences but final decisions are collective. That is the constitutional equivalent of a group project in which everyone fights over the slides and the submitted presentation says “we all contributed”. BJP spokesperson Sambit Patra has called the reported exchanges evidence of a healthy democracy. By that standard, a hospital waiting room is proof of excellent healthcare because everyone has had a chance to complain.
The details are less soothing. A disputed change to Form 6, the application used by new voters, reportedly asked applicants to establish electoral ancestry through an earlier roll, including a parent’s or grandparent’s name. Local electoral machinery, meanwhile, is said to have faced the prospect of greater control being shifted to Delhi. In West Bengal, a Supreme Court petition alleges that more than 16.10 lakh appeals were filed in the Commission’s name to challenge voter restorations, allegedly without the knowledge or authorisation of the other Commissioners or the state Chief Electoral Officer. Those are allegations in a legal filing, not findings. They are also not improved by the phrase “all decisions were unanimous”.
The TDP’s Lavu Sri Krishna Devarayalu, along with NDA allies Chirag Paswan and Upendra Kushwaha, has sought clarification. That is useful, if belated. Parties may enjoy the convenience of national power, but voters in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana are still expected to deal with the consequences locally. Delhi can centralise the software, redesign the form and supervise the process; the citizen must produce the family tree, the old document and eventually an explanation for having existed at the wrong address in the wrong decade.
The voter is still required to prove who he is. The institution removing him from the list is not.
More from The Column
- Revanth Reddy’s Government Counts Days, Not DeliveriesAfter 1,000 days in office, Congress has discovered the safest achievement: a number nobody can inaugurate.
- Tollywood’s Biggest Opening Is Still the Press ReleaseBefore the second show, the publicity machine has already awarded itself the trophy, audited by nobody visible.
- Revanth’s Permanent Solution Leaves Telangana Permanently WaitingThe 22-A land freeze remains intact, but the government has successfully unfrozen its vocabulary.
- The Election Commission’s Unanimous Disagreement MachineWhen 13 crore voter names are involved, “internal deliberation” is a remarkably polite name for institutional fog.