Election Commission lets EROs clear SIR notice cases without hearing, even without BLO documents

The news

New Delhi. The Election Commission has added three options in ERONET, its roll-management software, for Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) in the 10 States and Union Territories in the SIR notice phase, The Hindu reports from an EC video recorded on October 1 and shown to Delhi’s EROs on October 4, with no written instruction. For voters under “logical discrepancies” or “no mapping”, an ERO may choose “without hearing” or “with hearing”. Where the booth-level officer (BLO) uploaded documents, the ERO may mark the voter “found OK” without a hearing order; where none were collected, the ERO may still mark the voter eligible after uploading a hearing order. Earlier a hearing order was needed only to mark a voter ineligible, and an ineligible mark cannot be reversed. In Delhi, 33.1 lakh notices were issued, over 350 voters were marked ineligible, the notice phase ends on November 30 and the final roll is due on December 4.

Static syllabus linkage

1. Article 324 gives the Commission control of the rolls; Article 326 gives every adult a vote. Article 324(1) vests superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls in the Election Commission. Article 326 provides adult suffrage, so every citizen of 18 or more who is not disqualified may be registered. Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 give the procedure.
2. Natural justice requires a hearing before a name is struck off. Audi alteram partem, “hear the other side”, means no one may be adversely affected without notice and a chance to answer. In Lal Babu Hussein v. Electoral Registration Officer (1995), the Supreme Court dealt with names removed from rolls on doubts about citizenship and stressed fair opportunity to the voter.

Why UPSC loves this

1. Roll revision tests the Election Commission’s fairness. GS2 asks about the “salient features of the Representation of the People Act” and “statutory, regulatory and various quasi-judicial bodies”. An ERO’s duty to hear is such a procedure question.

Analysis

1. The new options let a hearing be skipped in the direction that helps a voter, but also the one that harms. Clearing a voter in without a hearing saves weeks for people whose documents are in order. But “without hearing” is also open for a voter with thin papers, and an ineligible mark cannot be undone. A fair design keeps the quick route for inclusion and makes a recorded hearing compulsory before deletion.
2. Instructions by video leave the officer carrying a rule no one wrote. An ERO told The Hindu that guidelines changed often, some were oral, and officers were first told to identify “suspected foreigners” and then told not to. An ERO’s decision is quasi-judicial and needs a written authority that an appeal can read.
3. Lens — Independence and accountability: an independent Commission still has to be checkable. The Commission’s independence lets it set its own timetable, but an independent body must also be open to checking. Written instructions, a stated reason for each deletion and an appeal are what make a power of this size answerable. An officer would insist on them first.

Administrator's brainstorm