Maharashtra poll chief seeks ECINet changes to give EROs more discretion
text_fields
New Delhi: Maharashtra Chief Electoral Officer S Chockalingam has sought four changes to the Election Commission’s ECINet software, effectively asking that Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) be given greater discretion to exercise powers already provided to them under law during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
Chockalingam’s September 24 communication to senior Election Commission officials sought changes that would allow EROs to decide which cases involving “logical discrepancies” require a hearing, what documents can be accepted and which discrepancies they can dispose of themselves. The requests echo concerns previously recorded by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi over the software limiting the statutory powers of EROs.
The communication, addressed to Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg, Director General of IT Seema Khanna and two secretariat officers, was sent a day after The Indian Express reported that Sandhu and Joshi had flagged that the software was curtailing the powers of EROs.
Chockalingam could not be reached for comment on Monday. The Indian Express sent a questionnaire to the ECI spokesperson, who acknowledged receipt. A response was awaited.
Maharashtra is the largest state currently in the notice phase of the SIR. Its draft electoral roll, published on August 31, had 21.1 per cent fewer electors, while the final roll is due on November 16.
A “logical discrepancy” does not mean that a person has been found ineligible to vote. It refers to a mismatch identified by ECINet while attempting to link an elector with a parent or grandparent in the previous SIR roll. Such discrepancies can include a mismatch in a parent’s name, an age gap between parent and child of less than 15 or more than 50 years, an incorrect progression of age between the old and new rolls, or cases where an elector submitted no document or only Aadhaar.
In an earlier communication on August 14, Sandhu had said that Chief Electoral Officers (CEOs), District Election Officers (DEOs) and EROs, who are the statutory authorities responsible for electoral rolls, were reporting that they could not perform their duties because their powers had been “curtailed by centralised control of ERONet at DG(IT) level”. He had questioned why responsibility for electoral rolls rested with CEOs, DEOs and EROs under law while access control was centralised with the Director General of IT.
Chockalingam’s September 24 communication effectively sought the same flexibility that the two Election Commissioners had said was being curtailed by the software.
The CEO said the rules give an ERO the discretion to require a person to appear personally for a hearing. However, ECINet’s “Take Action” menu has two options, neither of which allows an ERO to waive a hearing. He sought a third option, “Exempted from Hearing”, for electors who submit “valid and satisfactory documents”. This, he said, would spare senior citizens, persons with disabilities and other vulnerable groups unnecessary inconvenience and apprehension.
Chockalingam also pointed out that the 13 documents listed on the back of the SIR notice are “indicative and not exhaustive”. He sought a 14th option, “Other/Other Equivalent Document”, noting that people from tribal, homeless and sex-worker communities may not be able to provide documents from the prescribed list.
In cases where an ERO cannot resolve a logical discrepancy based only on a Booth Level Officer’s statement, supporting documents currently have to be sent to the DEO for verification. Chockalingam sought permission for EROs to decide such cases themselves when they are satisfied with the evidence. His request cited the legal framework under which the ERO is responsible for the electoral roll and is required to direct inclusion of a person’s name when satisfied that the person is eligible.
The CEO also sought to make the upload of an “Extract of Last SIR” optional in discrepancy cases. ECINet currently requires the extract to be uploaded in every such case, although the discrepancy has already been identified using the previous SIR roll.
Chockalingam further sought written FAQs for EROs, saying they had a number of queries about the process and that oral instructions from the ECI or CEO were insufficient. The FAQs would cover notices, document submission, hearings and disposal of cases.
The Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 assign responsibility for electoral rolls to EROs, with one ERO for each Assembly constituency. An ERO is generally a sub-divisional magistrate or an officer of equivalent rank in the district administration. EROs prepare electoral rolls, hear claims and objections and decide which names are retained or deleted.
The system is designed around decentralised decision-making, with the ECI having historically relied on this structure in responding to allegations of large-scale manipulation of electoral rolls. While EROs continue to have the legal authority to decide individual entries, their actions in practice are mediated by the functions available through the software. ECINet’s access and functions are controlled centrally by the ECI’s IT division in New Delhi.
In its first response to The Indian Express investigation on September 23, the ECI said its digital platforms operate under strict data-security protocols to prevent unauthorised tampering and that EROs and DEOs function according to their statutory powers for registration and deletion under law. Chockalingam’s communication was sent the following day.
On September 26, following a meeting of the full Commission, the ECI announced several measures that addressed some of the concerns raised by Maharashtra. It decided that electors flagged for being unmapped or having logical discrepancies would ordinarily not have to appear personally before an ERO or Assistant Electoral Registration Officer. Booth Level Officers would collect documents from their homes and upload them on ECINet for a decision by the ERO. Hearings would be held only in exceptional circumstances, as decided by the ERO, preferably online.
The Commission also said various upgrades had already been made to the portal based on inputs from State CEOs and that any further flexibility required by field officers would be made operational.
The September 26 note also announced eight other decisions addressing concerns recorded by Sandhu and Joshi over the preceding 10 months. Agendas will be circulated before every Commission meeting and minutes issued afterwards. Foreign travel by officers will require Commission approval. New IT modules and portals will be examined by a committee of officers before being placed before the Commission.
The ECINet system will also be reviewed by a committee headed by a Senior Deputy Election Commissioner and including an independent expert from an IIT or IIIT. The Commission said further flexibility would be provided to field officers if required, and that directions issued by Election Commissioners to officers would be “meticulously complied with”.
These decisions correspond to several concerns previously placed on record by Sandhu and Joshi, including the absence of agendas and minutes for Commission meetings, foreign travel by officers without Commission approval, the development of new IT modules without their knowledge, the need for an independent audit of the electoral-roll database, limited access for field officers to ERONet and changes in the allocation of work within the IT division.