'False' Affidavit: Prashant Bhushan Demands Prosecution of ECI Officials
Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan demands prosecution of ECI officials, alleging a lack of records for the nationwide Special Intensive Revision.
Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan has launched a scathing attack on the Election Commission of India (ECI), labeling its affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court as "false." Speaking at a press conference at the Press Club of India, Bhushan demanded the prosecution of the officials involved, alleging that a massive nationwide Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter rolls was carried out without formal meetings, statutory backing, or any documented records.
The Mystery of the Missing Records
The core of Bhushan's allegation lies in the lack of transparency regarding who authorized the SIR. He revealed that an RTI application filed by an individual named Anjali sought details on who made the decision to conduct the revision, when it happened, and how it was executed. According to Bhushan, the Election Commission's response was startling: they claimed to have no record whatsoever of the decision-making process.
Bhushan questioned the legitimacy of the affidavit filed before the apex court, which was submitted by a Deputy Election Commissioner. He pointed out that the document claimed authority was delegated and concurrence was obtained via email rather than through formal deliberations by the full Commission.
"You are conducting SIR across the entire country, something being done for the first time since 1951. An unprecedented decision of this magnitude, rebuilding electoral rolls from scratch across the country, has not been taken in the last 75 years. And regarding that, you are claiming no meeting was held?"
Illegal Alterations to Form 6
The senior advocate further accused the poll body of overstepping its legal bounds by unilaterally modifying Form 6. Legally, Form 6 requires only three pieces of information: proof of age, proof of address, and a self-declaration of citizenship. However, Bhushan alleged that the ECI added a fourth requirement, forcing applicants to trace their lineage by disclosing the location of their parents or grandparents in 2002.
Bhushan asserted that because Form 6 is a statutory form, the Commission lacks the competence to make such additions. He noted that the other two Election Commissioners had reportedly objected to this insertion, yet the change was implemented regardless.
Centralization and the 'Algorithm' Concern
Another major point of contention is the alleged centralization of power. Bhushan claimed that the authority to add or delete voters has been shifted to an IT cell in Delhi, effectively stripping field-level Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) of their statutory powers.
Turning to the specific case of voter deletions in Delhi, Bhushan highlighted a worrying trend:
- Approximately 47 lakh names were deleted from the rolls.
- About 32 lakh of these were classified as 'shifted'.
- These individuals were allegedly forced to file Form 6—a form intended for first-time voters—which requires a declaration that the person has never voted before.
Bhushan questioned why these citizens were not permitted to use Form 8, which is specifically designed for voters who have shifted their residence, suggesting the ECI was essentially forcing 31 lakh people to submit false declarations.
Mechanical Exclusion of Voters
The advocate also touched upon the use of automated software to identify discrepancies in voter records. He mentioned that the Supreme Court bench observed that an algorithm appeared to have been developed to mechanically exclude voters. This has raised serious concerns that the software may have been designed to target and exclude a specific class of citizens.
Concluding his arguments, Bhushan maintained that the lack of documentation regarding the consent of the other Election Commissioners renders the affidavit false, insisting that the officer who filed it, and those who authorized it, must face prosecution.