Preparation of correct electoral rolls

THE ELECTION to the House of People and to the Legislative Assembly of a State shall be on the basis of adult suffrage. Every person who is a citizen of India and who is not less than 18 years of age shall be entitled to be registered as voter at any such election. This is a constitutional right under Article 326. This right should be translated into practice by the Election Commission, which is established under Article 324 of the Constitution.

It is the duty of the Election Commission to prepare the electoral roll for the constituencies of the Legislative Assembly of every State, under sections 15 and 21 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. The electoral rolls of the Legislative Assemblies within a parliamentary constituency will be adopted as the electoral roll of the parliamentary constituency. The electoral roll thus prepared will be revised and updated with eligible voters as on the qualifying date, that is, January 1 of the year in which the electoral roll is prepared or revised.

The ineligible voters are:

(1) Young persons under 18 years of age on the qualifying date.

(2) Non-citizens of India

(3) Non-residents

(4) Persons of unsound mind.

(5) Persons disqualified from voting under the provisions of any law relating to corrupt or illegal practice and other offences in connection with election.

The persons who have become ineligible to be a voter, or who have changed their residences from one place to another or from one constituency to another, and who are dead should be excluded from the revised and updated electoral roll by proper door-to-door enumeration and verification. A voter cannot be a voter in two or more places in the same constituency or in any other constituency.

Eligible voters could be included in the electoral roll till the last day of filing nomination papers in relation to a particular election being held in the year. Nobody could be included after the last day fixed for filing nomination papers. The electoral roll prepared, revised and updated should be published. It would become effective only from the date of publication. An updated electoral roll, which is not published, could not be used in the election. Further only on publication appeal, if any, could be made against any inclusion or exclusion of names in the electoral roll to the Chief Electoral Officer of the State.

It may thus be seen that the preparation of the electoral roll and updating it till the last day fixed for filing nomination papers to the election is a continuous obligation of the Election Commission.

The millennium's first mini general election was held in May 2001 to the State Assemblies of Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Kerala, Assam and Pondicherry. The Election Commission conducted the election in five States without any preparation of the electoral roll for the Legislative Assemblies before the election on the qualifying date and updating it. This can be illustrated from the election held for the Tamil Nadu Assembly on May 10, 2001. The election was held on the basis of the electoral roll, prepared for the general election of Parliament held in May 1996. It was revised for the general election of Parliament held in October 1999. There were complaints during the 1999 parliamentary election that eligible voters in large scale were not included. It was not an updated electoral roll. During the revision in 1999, again voters in large scale were deleted from the list which was used in May 2001, in Tamil Nadu Assembly election. Thus there was only a downward revision.

The population of Tamil Nadu, according to the Census taken in February 2001, was 6,21,10,839. It may be taken as the population of Tamil Nadu as on the qualifying date of election to the Tamil Nadu Assembly, that is January 1, 2001. Out of the population of 6.21 crores the ineligible voters will be in the order of less than one crore. The total eligible voters in the State will be not less than 5.20 crores in any estimate or survey. It was said that there were 4.66 crore voters in May 2001 as against 4.38 crores in 1996 as per the electoral roll. But the figure in the electoral roll of May 2001 election was only about 4 crores, since there were large scale deletions at the instance of various interested groups and political parties.

At the mercy of election officers

In the election to the Tamil Nadu Assembly held on May 10, 2001 the voters were at the mercy of the election officers to exercise their franchise. The Chief Electoral Officer in Tamil Nadu announced on April 30, 2001 even persons whose names are in the electoral roll would be allowed to exercise their franchise only if they prove their identity by any of the following 16 certificates/papers.

(1) Passport(2) Driving licence

(3) Income tax permanent account number

(4) Government or private employees identity card.

(5) Ration card issued before January 1, 2001.

(6) Most backward or backward class or Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe certificate.

(7) Student identity card.

(8) Patta, or property document.

(9) Gun licence

(10) Conductor licence

(11) Pension documents

(12) Certificate of widow of ex-serviceman

(13) Orphan certificate

(14) Handicapped certificate

(15) Freedom fighters identity card

(16) Post office passbook

All those who had the photo identity cards issued by the Election Commission were not allowed to vote in the election held on May 10, 2001, if their names were not found or struck off in the electoral roll. Many of the general public whose names were in the electoral roll were not permitted to exercise their franchise on account of their inability to produce any of the above mentioned certificates/papers to prove their identity. Thus a large chunk of the people of Tamil Nadu, say more than one crore, was not permitted to exercise its franchise.

Whose fault?

The impersonation is to be avoided in any election. Bogus voters are to be eliminated. But, for avoiding impersonation and eliminating bogus votes, can the Election Commission treat everybody as impersonator? It was the duty of the Election Commission to make door-to-door enumeration of the voters and to update the electoral roll before the general election to the State Assembly and Parliament. It had not fulfilled its duty. It was at fault.

This was echoed in the Tamil Nadu Assembly in the Governor's Address on May 25. The Governor said in paragraph 3 of her address:

"The elections to the Legislative Assembly witnessed the use of electronic voting machines (EVMs) for the first time throughout the State. There were many cases of delay in commencement of polling due to malfunctioning of machines. Many developed countries like the United States and Japan have earlier experimented using EVMs but have now reverted back to the paper ballot. This government opposes the use of EVMs and would take up this matter with the Election Commission of India. More than one crore eligible voters were prevented from exercising their franchise despite having valid photo identity cards due to deletion of their names from the voter lists. This government will also take up this issue with the Election Commission and arrange to rectify the anomalies before the ensuing polls to local bodies."

The large-scale omission of eligible voters could be noticed not only in Tamil Nadu but also in every State and throughout India.

Smuggler Veerappan in the list

In the electoral roll there is wrong inclusion of names. Ineligible voters were permitted to include their names. True, the eligible voters, except a very few, do not take any interest to get their names included. Only the political parties take steps to enrol voters. A political party will enrol those who would vote for it. It will also enrol the names of persons, or even fictitious names which could later be used by it for casting bogus votes or impersonation.

To make an illustration, it may be pointed out the name of forest brigand Veerappan, son of Munisamy, is enrolled as voter in the electoral roll of T. Nagar Assembly constituency by an interested group. His name is at serial No. 434 of the voter list Part 101 of Ranganathan Street, in T.Nagar, Chennai-600017, which was published on July 21, 1999, relating to Electoral List of 1999, 9, T. Nagar, General (S22) Tamil Nadu. How did his name figure in the electoral roll? Why the Election Commission had not taken any action to remove it? It is a mystery.

On the other hand the names of genuine persons were not included even after repeated applications made by them in proper form. For an instance Mr. N. V. Banukeswaran, a practising advocate in the Madras High Court, had applied in the proper form (Form No. 6) to include his name and the names of his wife and father on Nov. 15, 2000 to the District Election Officer, Chennai Corporation. His name and the names of his wife and father are not included so far in the electoral roll. He had written to the Chief Electoral Officer and to the Election Commission several times. He had last reminded Chennai District Election Officer on March 13, 2001.

The name of the forest brigand Veerappan got included in the electoral roll. But the genuine voter, a responsible person in society, is not able to get his name included. What a defective system it is!

To correct all these anomalies the Election Commission should understand first that it had failed in its primary duty of preparing the electoral roll. It must first devote its attention on the preparation of the electoral roll and updating it by door- to-door enumeration without leaving an opportunity to any political party to enrol only persons who would vote for it. It is always the voluntary enrolment that creates problems. All the eligible voters should be included based on door-to-door enumeration and verification by the Election Commission.

Local bodies election

The local bodies elections are not within the purview of the Election Commission. Each State was given the liberty to appoint an autonomous State Election Commission to conduct the ordinary election of local bodies.

The Tamil Nadu State Legislature enacted the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 for the conduct of election to panchayats. Similarly the District Municipalities Act, 1920 and the City Municipal Corporation Acts relating to Chennai, Madurai, Coimbatore, Tiruchi, Salem and Tirunelveli, were suitably amended for conducting elections to municipalities and city corporations. An autonomous Tamil Nadu Election Commission was created for the purpose of looking after all the matters relating to local bodies election including the preparation of electoral roll and the conduct of election once in five years. In October 1996, the first ordinary election to local bodies was held, creating local bodies at grassroots level. Now, the second ordinary election to local bodies is to be held on October 16 and 18, 2001 in two phases for 6 municipal corporations 102 municipalities, 611 town panchayats, 29 district panchayats, 385 panchayat unions, and 12,618 village panchayats.

Under the provisions of the Panchayat Election Rules, 1995 and Municipal Corporation (Election) Rules 1996, the electoral roll of the Legislative Assemblies prepared by the Election Commission could be adopted as the basis and the electoral roll prepared for each unit of the local body. The electoral roll prepared should be revised and updated by the State Election Commission, before the election to the local bodies. Further it should be published so as to give effect to it.

The Tamil Nadu Election Commission had not revised nor updated the electoral roll of the State Assembly prepared by the Election Commission long ago.

I wrote to the Tamil Nadu Election Commissioner in this connection on September 10, pointing out the defects in the electoral roll and requested him to update it and conduct the election to the local bodies thereafter.

The State Election Commissioner replied on September 21: "It is settled law that whether or not revision of an electoral roll is undertaken and if undertaken, whether or not it is completed, the electoral roll for the time being in force must hold good." He further said that as per the provisions of the Constitution under Article 243U, he should conduct the local bodies election as scheduled since the five-year term of the local bodies would expire on October 24, 2001.

The State Election Commissioner, when confronted by the press, had reported that he would take up enumeration of voters and prepare the electoral roll in November 2001, after the conduct of the local bodies election in October. What does it mean? And what for?

The matter was taken to Madras High Court under a public interest litigation in W.P. No. 17189 of 2001. The First Bench of the Madras High Court found the illegality in non-preparation of the electoral roll for the ensuing election. However the Court in its order dated September 21 upheld the dates fixed for the election, but postponed the issue of election notification for four days and directed inter alia that "the voters, who have been enlisted for the parliamentary elections during October, 1999 and who have also been issued with photo identity cards and whose names do not find place in the ensuing local body elections to be held on October 16 and 18, 2001 shall be enlisted as voters and be allowed to exercise their franchise after due verification of the electoral list, which was followed for the Parliament election in 1999 and also photo identity cards, which shall be done on an application being made by the aspirant voters without insisting upon any format being filed. However, this exercise shall be done from today till the last date of filing nomination i.e., on or before 3 p.m. on October 1, 2001.''

The matter was taken up before the Supreme court, in SLP (Civil) 16875 of 2001 as more than one crore voters were not enrolled as stated by the Governor of the State. The Supreme Court declined on September 27 to interfere in it. The net result is that more than one crore voters, that is one sixth of the population of Tamil Nadu and 20 per cent of the eligible voters were deprived of their right to exercise their franchise. The High Court order had only the negative effect of reducing the number of days from 15 to 10 days for canvassing and meeting the people by the contestants.

Prof. S. KRISHNASWAMY

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Features
Previous : Know your English
Next     : The pity of war