- 41 minutes ago
If 2 of 3 people have one view, they aren't the dissenters: Ex-poll officer Ashok Lavasa on ECI row
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00All right, ladies and gentlemen, we're set for our next session.
00:03Very timely, new, see this one.
00:05It's all about the Election Commission on Trial.
00:07Are India's elections free and fair?
00:10Can I invite on stage Mr. Om Prakash Rawat, former Chief Election Commissioner,
00:15and Mr. Ashok Lawasa, former Election Commissioner, here to the stage with a round of applause, please.
00:20And our session moderator, Kaushik Dekha, Managing Editor, India Today Magazine.
00:36Welcome to India Today, Concliffe's out.
00:40I have a very direct question for both of you.
00:45Do you trust the Election Commission of India?
00:50And you can't answer this question with diplomacy because trust is either 100% or no trust.
00:57Trust cannot be 50%, 80%, 99%.
01:01So, sir, do you trust, not as the former Chief Election Commissioner of India,
01:07but as a citizen of India currently, do you trust the current Election Commission of India?
01:18Kaushik, you have asked a very, very pertinent question.
01:21It's very timely because the controversy is still simmering and, in fact, boiling.
01:29I would say that things are not as they used to be.
01:35Election Commission set a gold standard throughout the world in conducting free, fair and credible elections in the last 75
01:44plus years.
01:47Right now, because of this controversy, because such controversies in the life of constitutional authorities come and go.
01:57And therefore, I would resist making a conclusion just midway when things are just boiling.
02:06I would say, let's wait and watch for some time and then make a conclusion.
02:12So, you are still trusting the Election Commission of India?
02:16Giving them time.
02:17Giving them time to come out in the open.
02:21How long, sir?
02:23So long as it doesn't become a precipitate situation.
02:26Because it cannot go on and on because elections are also coming, elections are well in the past.
02:32So, we cannot give, if you are not trusting the Election Commission of India, you cannot give them long rope.
02:40Because the credibility of Indian democracy depends on the trust we put on the Election Commission of India.
02:47So, how long are you ready to wait?
02:50We have been in a country where things got sorted out in a manner we could never anticipate.
02:58And therefore, right now it is looking as if nothing is going to conclude soon.
03:04It may conclude sooner.
03:07You are hopeful that there could be an interesting outcome of this controversy.
03:14Mr. Lawas, the same question.
03:16Do you trust the Election Commission of India?
03:20Well, first of all, I am very sad that you asked me this question.
03:26And I am sadder that circumstances should be such that these questions should be raised.
03:36Clearly, there is a trust deficit which is in the air.
03:41And sadly, I must say that the Election Commission of India has contributed to this perception.
03:57Okay.
03:58So, what's next then?
04:00How can the Election Commission of India get back the trust?
04:05You are indirectly saying that you do not trust this Election Commission of India.
04:09Am I right?
04:11You know, we often tend to mistake the Election Commission of India with the three Election Commissioners.
04:22Because I think the Election Commission of India does so much work in management of elections,
04:28for which lacks of field functionaries are responsible.
04:34They are also part of the Election Commission.
04:37So, we have to distinguish between an institution which has existed, becomes stronger for the last 75 years.
04:47And today, because of some actions of some individuals, it might be facing challenging times.
04:55So, that clearly does not mean that we should suddenly write off this institution.
05:02Because I must tell you, and this I say with full sense of responsibility and a little bit of depression,
05:12that India, as an electoral democracy, will need the Election Commission of India.
05:19Because it is constitutionally mandated to make sure that there are free and fair elections.
05:27Without the existence of this neutral referee, you cannot have electoral democracy,
05:37sustainable electoral democracy in the country.
05:41Therefore, I think we should all wish that they come out of this parent imbroglio
05:47and how they will come out.
05:51That is probably what you are...
05:52I think the only option before the Election Commission is to state full facts before the people.
06:01Complete disclosure, which could even mean admission or some mistakes which they might have made.
06:08You said, sir, Election Commission is not about the three individuals, the three Election Commissioners.
06:15It is about large number of people, field workers.
06:19Two questions, sir, to both of you actually.
06:24Can all the people, such a large group of people, can they be manipulated to function in a particular direction?
06:33Either through force or through manipulation?
06:36And second, when you say the actions of some individuals may have cast aspersions on the functioning of Election Commission,
06:46who are those individuals?
06:48Do you have any particular individual in mind?
06:51Because everyone is talking of one particular individual, say, Election Commissioner.
06:56So, do you think he is responsible?
06:58And can he actually manipulate such large group of people?
07:04You answer first, sir, then I will come to Rawat, sir.
07:08So, let's look at the background of the current controversy.
07:11The background of the current controversy is clearly the special intensive revision,
07:16which has been going on for the last 16 months.
07:19Ever since this decision was announced and rolled out, there has been a lot of public outcry against this,
07:28in which various sections of the society are involved.
07:33Political parties, civil society organizations, individuals, people have gone to the court,
07:38people have sent representations, etc.
07:40So, as far as I recollect, in the history of Election Commission of India, 75 years,
07:47probably this is one decision which has led to maximum controversy and protest.
07:54So, we have to look at the issues which are affecting the special intensive revision.
08:01Now, to your question about which individual or more than one individual is responsible.
08:08So, if you look at the root of the current controversy,
08:13which, let us say, was provoked by the article that came in the Indian Express,
08:19so what are the issues that are being raised?
08:22I think we need to understand that.
08:24So, one of the issues pertains to Form 6, changes which have been made.
08:30Who made those changes?
08:32Because, according to one of the election commissioners, the changes made are illegal and unauthorized.
08:39So, clearly, it is only the election commission which can take these decisions, number one.
08:47Number two is, which is more important,
08:50even the entire full election commission is not authorized to make these changes
08:55without the approval of the competent authority, which is the government.
08:59So, we don't know who took this decision.
09:03We don't know whether the government approved this decision.
09:06All that is being said in the press note of 26 September is that it was upheld by the Supreme
09:14Court.
09:15But, we don't know whether the Supreme Court was told that there is a Form 6 which exists,
09:20and now we are bringing another version or a declaration form in that.
09:25So, I think these are decisions which either one individual or the whole commission might have taken,
09:32but they are at the root of the controversy.
09:35I understand that, sir.
09:37But, the press note that came out of the election commission of India,
09:42it also said that all the SIR decisions related to SIR, they were unanimous.
09:47That means it had the signatures of the other two election commissioners also.
09:52And, Mr. Rawat, you often say that the other two election commissioners are also equally powerful
09:58because they can form a majority and can overturn a decision.
10:02So, in that case, they were part of the decision, including the Form 6 when it was done in Bihar,
10:09where also additional declaration was needed.
10:13But, they kept quiet and even now, they haven't said this in any election commission minutes.
10:19They have written it to some junior officers, junior to them.
10:24Now, do you think they also have a moral responsibility to either resign
10:29or should have protested when the additional form was added in Bihar, SIR?
10:37I would feel that this controversy has not thrown the factual position on the ground.
10:49Only some grey rays have been emanating through press notes or some news reports.
10:55That's all.
10:56And, therefore, jumping on any conclusion based on those will be hazardous.
11:01Election commission has been, you know, like my colleague said,
11:09that it is about 15 million people who conduct election and they are all election commission.
11:14And, in my first election in Bihar, I found that there was no violence on any polling station.
11:20And, we lost 17 lives of poll personnel, stress-related, because they did not bend to any extraneous pressures.
11:31Same thing about SIR.
11:33I, myself, checked three assembly constituencies in a district because I was very anxious about the reputation of the commission.
11:41I found that, of their own volition, certain EROs and BLOs, they held every Sunday a camp to assist the
11:51poor,
11:53technology illiterate, all those voters that, please come here, any difficulty, we will be here with internet, computer, everything.
12:02We will have forms, we will assist you, so that you do not suffer.
12:08In that constituency, the deletions are only 3%.
12:12Whereas, in the same district, two of the constituencies which I visited and saw,
12:17I found that deletions were somewhere between 14 to 19%, because their camps were not held.
12:23So, that is the kind of election machinery we are dealing with.
12:27But then, sir, you are also indicating that one person or the election commissioners,
12:32are they manipulating these 15 million people?
12:36They cannot.
12:38Then…
12:38Even if they want to, they cannot manipulate.
12:41Then why are we not trusting the election commission?
12:43Why are you raising these questions?
12:45It is not election commission.
12:46It is these three individuals who are under shadow.
12:50And if they continue doing this thing, election commission will ultimately be the sufferer.
12:56So, what is the way out, sir?
12:58Should they only answer the questions coming out in the open or they should resign?
13:03What is your solution?
13:04If they come out in the open, in the open means not through a press note, but…
13:11Take questions.
13:11Yes, open to the media and through media to the people of India, who are the sovereign of this country.
13:19If that happens, then there is no issue.
13:22Then everything will be clarified.
13:24But if they don't do, then the only alternative meaning to them is that, whatever you said.
13:30So, what is the way forward, Mr. Lawasa?
13:32Yeah, but before I speak of the way forward,
13:35I want to say that, you know, the SIR exercise is conceptually flawed, right?
13:43Why so?
13:44I'll tell you why.
13:45First, there are 100 reasons I can give you.
13:48But basically, you are carrying out an exercise in which you are shifting the onus of establishing your eligibility on
13:59the elector.
14:00This is turning the whole system upside down because in the last 75 years, right since 1950 or maybe two
14:10years before that,
14:11when the electoral roll preparation exercise started, it was the responsibility, the duty of the election commission through the machinery
14:21in the field
14:22to go to people and include them in the electoral roll.
14:26Because what we must understand is that the constitution makers gave you the right to vote,
14:34but you cannot exercise that right till your name is included in the electoral roll.
14:40So, it was a bounden duty of the commission to include people.
14:44Somehow, you find that there is an exercise in which the priority is to exclude people.
14:52And if you look at the objective of the SIR, the objective stated by the election commission,
14:59I am not inventing this, in the notification of 24th June, they said,
15:05we want to remove all ineligible people from the electoral roll.
15:10It is a very fair objective.
15:12Nobody can doubt that.
15:13But now that you have completed this exercise fully for 50 crore people and you are almost halfway through for
15:23the remaining part of the country,
15:25can you please tell how many ineligible people have been detected and removed?
15:31Because, let me just complete.
15:34The eligibility criteria is prescribed in Article 326 of the Constitution.
15:42And that merely says you have to be a citizen of India, you have to be 18 years plus,
15:48you don't have to be disqualified by any law for being an elector, and you should be of sound mind.
15:55These are the only four criteria laid down in the Constitution.
15:59Nothing else, no other qualification is required.
16:04So now, will the election commission tell the people of this country how many ineligible people have been identified?
16:12On the 27th of May, the Supreme Court ordered that within four weeks of the completion of SIR,
16:21or preparation of electoral roll, all those who have been removed because of doubtful citizenship,
16:29their cases should be referred to the Foreigners' Tribunal.
16:33It is now four months.
16:34I think people are entitled to know how many cases have been referred by the election commission to the Foreigners'
16:41Tribunal.
16:42According to the election commission, the numbers that we have,
16:4613.39 crore people have been removed from draft and final rolls.
16:51In some states we have final rolls, in some states we have draft rolls.
16:54So of that, 13.13 crore,
16:59they are people who are dead, absent, shifted permanently, and duplicate.
17:05These four categories.
17:06Nobody can doubt that a dead person should be removed from the electoral roll.
17:10Nobody can doubt duplicate.
17:11By the way, it doesn't make him ineligible.
17:14He may be eligible as a voter when he was alive.
17:18Yeah, nobody is saying he is ineligible.
17:20But that is the purpose of all review.
17:23So they have kept, these are the official, I mean, the visible categories.
17:28Then there is another category which is others.
17:31So here we can bring that question of ineligible.
17:34Someone has shifted to another, from one state to another,
17:37he can be a voter in another state.
17:39So that is also clear.
17:41Duplicate, duplication happens.
17:43It's very important that we clean the rolls.
17:45So that leaves, if we really count,
17:48only 2.26 million people,
17:51unlike the 133.9 million people that is being claimed,
17:58actually the real people who are out of the electoral roll are just 2.26 million.
18:03Yes, of course, the election commission should come out with the list of these people
18:07who have been out for other reasons, whatsoever the reason is.
18:18I think we need to understand that if a person is absent or he has shifted,
18:25he was in Kota Yam earlier, he has shifted to Bangalore.
18:29It doesn't mean that he is ineligible.
18:32You are not saying it is ineligible, sir.
18:34No, no, no.
18:35That's exactly what I am saying.
18:36So if you are saying that he is not ineligible,
18:39but he should be enrolled in Bangalore.
18:42So when the entire SIR exercise is completed in the country,
18:48in 2024 elections, we had 98 crore voters, right?
18:54Electors.
18:55That was an EP ratio, electors to population ratio, of about 98 or 99%.
19:03Now, as per the tentative data which has become available,
19:08about 13 crores, more than 13 crore people have been removed.
19:11And by the way, in half of the country, which means 50 crore,
19:18that roll is final.
19:21It's no longer tentative.
19:22So, at the end of this exercise,
19:26will our total electors population become 88 crores or 90 crores?
19:33Because according to the population atlas
19:36and the figures of population projection
19:38given by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
19:42India's adult population, 18 crores, 18 years and above,
19:48should be in the region of 103 or 104 crores.
19:52So, is the election commission saying
19:55that we don't believe this census figures?
19:58And even if there are 103 crore,
20:01according to the census data,
20:02our electoral roll will only show 88 or 89 crores.
20:06So, are they satisfied with this EP ratio?
20:10So, that is the point.
20:13Another fundamental question,
20:15all this integrity and impartiality of election commission
20:20also was brought in question
20:21about the selection process of election commissioners.
20:25So, earlier, the chief justice of India
20:28was part of the selection panel.
20:30Now, he is no more there.
20:31So, executive actually,
20:33the party in power can overrule
20:35because only opposition leader is in the selection panel.
20:39So, do you think that needs to be changed
20:41as various parties are demanding
20:43that the selection process should go back
20:47to include the CZI again?
20:51In fact, Honorable Supreme Court themselves
20:54in an observation in 2017 had said
20:58that although the parliament has not enacted the law
21:01as envisages in the constitution
21:05for selection process, etc.,
21:08till now, after 70 years,
21:11but we are satisfied
21:12that whosoever manned these offices so far
21:17delivered successively, on time,
21:21free, fair and credible elections.
21:23That means when only executive was selecting,
21:26even then,
21:28the selection process was very good,
21:30effective, and avoided
21:32these kind of controversies.
21:33Now, there has been some progress
21:36after this new law came
21:37that LOP has been included
21:39in the selection process.
21:41So, I think democracy and other things
21:44keep evolving.
21:45Let us see this
21:47because after this,
21:48there has been a watershed movement
21:51we are setting in.
21:52So, let us wait and see what happens.
21:56Mr. Lawat, sir.
21:58I think this act,
22:01which was enacted in December 2023,
22:06according to my understanding,
22:08limited understanding,
22:09this is a self-goal scored by the government
22:14because Mr. Rawat is very right
22:16in saying that earlier there was no selection panel.
22:19The appointments were made unilaterally
22:24by the chief executive of the country,
22:26chief political executive.
22:29But let us look at the background
22:31of this entire thing.
22:33Why is it that Supreme Court
22:36appointed a selection panel
22:39which comprised the Prime Minister,
22:42the Chief Justice of India,
22:43and the leader of the opposition?
22:45This judgment was delivered in 2023,
22:48I think in March.
22:50And Supreme Court also gave the government
22:54the opportunity to make a law
22:57because till then no law existed.
23:00So, what does the government do?
23:03It makes a law.
23:05The bill introduced in August 2023
23:09and the final bill, by the way,
23:11has a lot of changes.
23:14But when you get an opportunity
23:16to make a law,
23:18what is the reason
23:19that prompts you
23:21to remove the chief justice
23:22from this election panel?
23:24That is number one question.
23:26I am not saying that chief justice
23:28should be in this election panel.
23:29But you got a committee
23:32from the Supreme Court
23:33and now you are removing
23:35the Supreme Court chief justice
23:36and you are introducing a minister
23:39to be nominated by the Prime Minister.
23:41So, what you are doing by design
23:45is tilting, structurally tilting
23:48in the favor of the government.
23:50Because you cannot have a situation
23:52in which a minister nominated
23:54by the Prime Minister will disagree.
23:56So, what happens is
23:59that it is always the view
24:00of these two persons
24:01which will prevail.
24:03The third person may say
24:05whatever he or she wants to say.
24:06So, I think
24:08the government should have
24:10actually used this opportunity
24:12to broad base the selection process
24:15and give a signal to the people
24:17that we are interested
24:19in an objective selection.
24:21Now, I think the most serious
24:23implication of this
24:24is that
24:26everybody will now look at
24:28the people who are selected
24:29with prejudice.
24:31that these guys are selected
24:33by a panel
24:35which is tilted
24:35in favor of the government.
24:37Therefore,
24:38they will do something
24:39which is partial
24:40to the government.
24:41I think it is
24:42unnecessarily put a burden
24:44on these people.
24:47One more thing.
24:50Opposition leaders,
24:51they are claiming
24:52that election commission
24:53is not just partial
24:55but it is being run
24:56by the PMO
24:57and Home Ministry.
24:59Now, you both were
25:00in the same office
25:01as the CEC and EC.
25:04Did you get phone calls
25:06from the executive
25:07that this should be done
25:08this way or that way?
25:10When you were the CEC,
25:12did you get calls
25:13from Prime Minister
25:14or Home Minister
25:15or any minister
25:18asking you to do
25:19take a particular decision
25:20in a certain way?
25:22Absolutely no.
25:23In fact, I remember a case
25:24when Rajya Sabha election
25:25in Gujarat was taking place
25:26and Ahmed Patel
25:28was suffering
25:29because 12 MLAs
25:31had changed the party,
25:34left the party
25:35and his number of voters
25:38or MLAs
25:39was reduced to
25:40bare minimum to win
25:42and at the end
25:44of the election,
25:46counting everything,
25:47election commission
25:48came out with the result
25:50that Ahmed Patel has won.
25:52So, that is the kind
25:54of election commission
25:55we had.
25:58You get calls
25:59because you resigned
26:00also when you disagreed
26:02and that brings me
26:03to the question
26:03that now these two commissioners
26:05have also disagreed
26:06on certain decisions.
26:08Should they resign
26:09or should they continue?
26:10I will answer your question.
26:13First of all,
26:14if two persons
26:15are of one view,
26:17it is the third person
26:18who is a dissenter.
26:19Two people cannot be dissenters
26:21because the election commission
26:23works on the principle
26:24of majority.
26:26So, if two people
26:27are of a certain view,
26:28it is the third person
26:29who has disagreed
26:30and the mystery
26:32or the intriguing part
26:34is that how is it
26:35that that minority view
26:37eventually prevailed.
26:39So, that is number one.
26:41Number two,
26:41as far as getting calls
26:42from the people
26:43in the government.
26:44Fortunately,
26:45I was never CEC,
26:46so I was not in that
26:47privileged position
26:48to receive calls.
26:49But,
26:51I can say
26:52on the basis
26:52of my experience,
26:54you see,
26:54people think
26:55that getting calls
26:57by itself
26:58means something wrong
26:59is happening.
27:01The political executive,
27:03the political parties,
27:05the stakeholders,
27:06any stakeholders,
27:07civil society organizations,
27:09they all have stakes
27:11in the election.
27:13There is nothing
27:15which should prevent
27:15a political party
27:17from reaching out
27:19to the election commission
27:20for good reason
27:21or even for wrong reason.
27:23They may make the demand
27:24they're free.
27:26It is up to the election commission
27:28how it will respond
27:29to these demands.
27:30So, to say that somebody
27:32is putting political pressure,
27:33I think,
27:34is to misunderstand
27:35the whole relationship.
27:37After all,
27:39election commission
27:40always recognizes
27:41political parties
27:43as one of the
27:44principal stakeholders
27:45in our democracy.
27:47So, if they have a view
27:48or even if they have a demand
27:50which may not be reasonable,
27:52they will approach
27:53the election commission.
27:54Let them make the demand.
27:56If it is unreasonable,
27:57the election commission
27:58will not consider it.
28:01Now,
28:02you didn't answer
28:03whether they should resign
28:04or not.
28:06I have said
28:08that they are not dissenters.
28:10They are the majority view.
28:12Okay.
28:13So, does that indicate
28:14that dissenter,
28:15the CEC should resign?
28:16I think dissenters
28:18should have a place
28:19in every system.
28:21If you start
28:22saying that
28:23all dissenters
28:24should go out
28:25of the system,
28:26I think you will
28:27end up
28:28weakening
28:29the system.
28:30I need a quick response
28:32on this issue.
28:34Whenever parties split,
28:36they go to the election commission
28:37for the party symbol
28:39and who will get to vote
28:41and who not to get vote
28:43in assembly
28:45or in parliament.
28:46Now, we have seen
28:48in certain cases
28:49the election commission
28:50takes a lot of time.
28:51At times,
28:51it takes quicker decision
28:53and taking a long time
28:55to decide
28:56itself
28:57hampers the cause
28:58of both sides
28:59of the party.
29:00So, do you think
29:01there should be
29:01a time frame
29:02to decide
29:03and some
29:04fixed framework
29:05to decide
29:06such splits
29:07and who will get
29:08the party symbol
29:10and we have seen
29:11in the case
29:12of Shiv Sena
29:12and the case
29:13of now
29:14TMC
29:15and CP also.
29:17So, there should be
29:18fixed framework
29:19and timeline
29:20to decide
29:21such cases?
29:22That we can't fix
29:23because, you know,
29:24it depends on
29:25the political parties
29:26division
29:26and the splinter groups
29:29because if they bring
29:30truckloads
29:31of affidavits
29:32in support
29:33of their group,
29:35election commission
29:36will be at sea
29:37how to examine
29:38all those
29:39affidavits
29:41ensure that
29:42they are all
29:43genuine good
29:44that requires time
29:47and many a times
29:48because in
29:49our time
29:50when I was there
29:51there were
29:51four major splits
29:53ADMK
29:54Samajwadi Party
29:55Jinta Dal
29:56and I found
29:58that three truckloads
29:59of affidavits
29:59had come.
30:01So, election commission
30:02took some time
30:03but then they said
30:04this three truckload
30:05thing we will not
30:06go into
30:07we drop that issue
30:08that these local
30:10body representatives
30:12because we can't
30:14in a foreseeable
30:17time frame
30:17examine them.
30:19So, election commission
30:19can expedite
30:21that is there
30:21but time frame
30:22cannot be fixed.
30:23you see, there are many laws
30:30in our country
30:30where it is stipulated
30:33that courts will take
30:35decisions within six months
30:36or at specified time frame.
30:39I don't know
30:40if any court
30:42has been held
30:43accountable
30:43for not adhering
30:45to that schedule.
30:46So, that having said
30:48it is my
30:49personal belief
30:51that public authorities
30:53whoever it might be
30:56they are generally
30:57reluctant
30:58to submit themselves
31:00to timelines
31:01which is
31:02not in the interest
31:04of the people.
31:05my own view is that
31:08whatever public service
31:09is to be delivered
31:11I think it is fair
31:13to tell people
31:14that we will
31:15make an effort
31:16to
31:16take a decision
31:18in such and such time.
31:20However,
31:21that does not preclude
31:23the possibility
31:24of some cases
31:25in which
31:26they feel helpless
31:28that we can't decide
31:29the example
31:29that Mr. Rawat gave.
31:31So, it should be
31:32open for them
31:33to record
31:34good enough reasons
31:35why they are taking
31:36so long
31:37to decide this case.
31:38But any kind
31:39of transparent
31:40framework
31:41will only add
31:42to the credibility
31:43of these organizations.
31:46Transparency
31:46is the key word here
31:47and I hope
31:49the Election Commission
31:50of India
31:50will be transparent
31:52in future
31:53and will come up
31:54clean soon
31:55so that we can
31:56have faith
31:57in the electoral process.
31:58Thank you so much
31:59for both of you
32:00being here.