SOURCE :- SIASAT NEWS
The Bombay High Court requested that the Election Commission cite a law that allows it to eject a politician’s name from the democratic move without having a reading. The jury reaffirmed to the Commission that its primary goal is to enable people to cast their ballots.
There is a deeper problem at play in this query. The number of names that are excluded typically dominates the Special Intensive Revision ( SIR ) debate. But the bigger issue is not just whether it was a statistical determination, and who is accountable if it turns out to be incorrect. The real issue with SIR is not a single person or place, but rather a system where decisions are made without any accountability.
Holes at the Commission
Decisions must be made by compromise or by the two members of the Commission, which are three similar members. Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi filed at least 14 concerns in ten weeks, four of which were filed in one day, according to a report from The Indian Express on September 23. Questions were also asked about exposure to representatives and power of IT systems.
The Supreme Court’s request for clarity was the most significant turning point. Sandhu inquired about the parties ‘ legal standing to record pertains on behalf of the Commission. No single came up with a response, neither Joshi nor the Bengal Chief Electoral Officer.
Different positions are held by the Commission. It stated in a press release on September 23 that final decisions were made overwhelmingly and that expressing disapproval is common practice. It made the announcement that goals may be made available before sessions and minutes after that, three days later. The significance of this statement is intriguing because, up until now, nothing was made people. This meant that if someone had inquired, it would have been difficult to determine who, when, and on what foundation made the decision.
One location has electricity, another has responsibility.
Local election authorities are legally tasked with adding and removing brands. However, IT managers in Delhi supposedly have the authority to access the list. The answer is straightforward: those who have authorized control and those who do not have control do not. Every link in such a program may point to another if anything goes wrong.
Returning names is costly, but removing them is low.
Karnataka is a perfect example; over 4, 000 Form 7s for brands treatment were submitted in various regions. On October 1, 2026, five Pines were filed in the position, three of which involved right-wing party people. In the Vijayapura issue, no Pine was received at all. A Vartha Bharati investigation revealed that a single hall in Madikeri received 61 large requests, all of which had Muslim names, and that employees at the party office had received the published forms.
This is where the true imbalance clearly appears. A person can only report an objection by filling out a form, and there is no cost associated with correcting it. On the other hand, the person whose name is revoked must bear the costs of obtaining documents, attending sessions, and waiting for an charm. Former Chief Election Commissioner S. Y. Qureshi said that even leaders who help are complicit in the use of tools like Form 6 and that even those who do so are guilty of violating the law by away to one month. However, when accountability is split at every stage, it is still up to the individual to take action.
On the jury route, there is the same ambiguity.
The Supreme Court in Bengal gave the circumstances to criminal bodies. 3.3.3 million of the 6 million citizens chosen for “logical inconsistency” were still present on the list. Thousands of pertains were filed after that, and no one is aware of the identity of the person who filed them. No one is the architect, according to Suvendu Adhikari, who claims that 700,000 of the 2. 7 million removed electors filed appeals, while the Commission’s figures place the figure at over 2.2 million.
The Commission contends that the listing must be accurate. It called allegations of widespread removals in Bengal “exaggerated” and motivated by political objectives in an affidavit filed with the Supreme Court. Although this goal is reputable, a true goal does not produce the approach accountable. A clear record and a transparent procedure are required.
Scheduling is the most important factor in this structure. Elections are scheduled, but pertains take place at their own pace. The adjustment will only be made to the list, never the outcome, for those whose names are not returned before the vote.
Previous minister R. K. Singh claims that 28.7 million individuals were unable to cast ballots in the SIR elections and requires reelection under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act. Although the fundamental issue at the heart of this demand is that when it is impossible to make up for votes that were improperly excluded after the election, precautions should be taken at the beginning rather than the end of the process.
Why resigning didn’t solve the issue
The departure of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar is being demanded by the residents and organizations at Jantar Mantar. Resigning is not the answer, but in terms of analysis, the indignation is natural. If the person had been at fault, his situation would have been settled with his exit. However, a framework that permits the release of information from the government, separates power from responsibility, and ignores broad objections will result in the same outcomes for the next person.
Reformation may start with complete transparency: a public record of every significant choice, including any dissention. This should also make sure that both power and responsibility are constrained, ensuring that the person who is in charge of the legal decision also has true authority. The large filing of Form 7 may be investigated and steps should be taken at the grassroots to stop false objections. Ultimately, every appeal’s count and rank should be made public, removing any potential conflict with the information.
A representative of the Lawyers ‘ Association for the Constitution, a leader of an independent committee headed by Justice M. B. Lokur, has sent a message in this way. By December 2026, it will request to publish a report to assess the SIR’s viability and usefulness.
Although the voting record is not a legally binding document, it is the most common form of identification. A procedure that makes no one responsible for deletion decisions serves only to improve the roster and lessens trust. The responsibility for enabling citizens to cast their ballots may fall under the purview of those in a democracy.
SOURCE : SIASAT
