Opposition questions ECI’s selective transparency as crucial voter data disappears following objections.
BY PC Bureau
During the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) press conference on August 17, Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar faced pointed questions regarding the integrity and transparency of the electoral process. However, several critical inquiries were either inadequately addressed or left unanswered, raising concerns about the ECI’s accountability. Here are some of the questions that were cleverly avoided by the ECI:
- Presence of Foreign Nationals in Voter Rolls
Journalists questioned the ECI about the inclusion of foreign nationals—specifically from Nepal, Myanmar, and Bangladesh—in Bihar’s voter lists. EC sources earlier claimed that during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), numerous such individuals were identified. Despite this, the ECI’s response lacked specifics on the number of foreign nationals removed and the measures taken to prevent future occurrences.
READ: Media Bias: Two Hours for EC, Two Minutes for Rahul
- Discrepancy in Maharashtra’s Voter Numbers
The ECI was asked to explain why the total number of registered voters in Maharashtra exceeded the state’s estimated adult population. This anomaly suggested potential issues in the voter registration process. The ECI’s response did not adequately clarify this discrepancy or provide a satisfactory explanation.
- Deletion of 65 Lakh Voter Names in Bihar
The deletion of 65 lakh voter names in Bihar raised concerns about the fairness of the SIR process. The Supreme Court directed the ECI to publish details of these deletions, including reasons such as death, migration, or duplication. However, the ECI didn’t specifically answered a related question about inclusion of fresh voters—if any– in the list.
4. Access to Digital Voter Lists:
The ECI faced scrutiny over its refusal to provide machine-readable, digital voter lists to the public. Opposition parties argued that this lack of access hindered transparency and accountability. The ECI defended its position, citing a Supreme Court judgment that restricted sharing such data due to concerns over privacy. However, the commission failed to explain why machine-readable data was removed from Bihar’s voter lists only after the opposition flagged anomalies.
5.Retention and Deletion of CCTV Footage
Journalists inquired about the ECI’s policy on retaining CCTV footage from polling booths. The ECI had previously reduced the retention period to 45 days, citing concerns over voter privacy and the potential misuse of footage. However, the rationale for this decision and its implications on electoral transparency were not thoroughly addressed during the press conference.
6. Verification of Duplicate Voter Registrations
The ECI was questioned about the measures in place to detect and prevent duplicate voter registrations. While the ECI emphasized the involvement of Booth Level Agents (BLAs) and the use of video testimonials, specific details on the effectiveness of these methods and instances of detected duplicates were not provided.
- Handling of Objections During SIR
Concerns were raised about the ECI’s handling of objections during the SIR process. Opposition parties claimed that their objections were not adequately addressed. The ECI’s response focused on procedural aspects but did not delve into specific instances where objections may have been overlooked or mishandled.
- Oversight of Bulk Voter Registrations
Questions were posed about the ECI’s oversight of bulk voter registrations, which could potentially inflate voter rolls. The ECI highlighted the involvement of political parties and BLAs in the registration process but did not address specific mechanisms in place to monitor and control bulk registrations.
- Accountability for Data Discrepancies
The ECI was asked about accountability measures for discrepancies in voter data, such as mismatched addresses or incorrect photographs. While the ECI mentioned corrective actions taken, specific examples and the effectiveness of these measures were not detailed, leaving questions about the thoroughness of data verification processes.
READ: ECI Press Meet Raises More Questions Than It Settles
The ECI’s responses during the press conference were characterized by general statements emphasizing procedural integrity and transparency. However, the lack of detailed explanations and concrete evidence on critical issues has left many questions unanswered, fueling ongoing concerns about the credibility and impartiality of the electoral process.
The ECI’s responses during the press conference were characterized by general statements emphasizing procedural integrity and transparency. However, the lack of detailed explanations and concrete evidence on critical issues has left many questions unanswered, fueling ongoing concerns about the credibility and impartiality of the electoral process.
