Several petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court about the large-scale revision of voter lists happening in 12 states. One of these petitions was submitted by Tamilaga Vetri Kazhagam, a new Tamil Nadu political party started by actor Vijay. Their petition asks that the families of Booth Level Officers (BLOs) who died by suicide during this work should receive proper compensation. A two-judge Supreme Court bench Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Jayamalaya Bagchi is looking into all these cases together. While hearing Vijay’s party’s petition, Justice Surya Kant said something important: BLOs who are given the job of revising voter lists cannot refuse their duty. It is their responsibility to do this work. However, he also said that state governments must make sure BLOs are not overloaded. If the workload is too much, they should assign more staff to help. No employee is allowed to avoid their duties, but the government must also take care of the staff. This issue has become a major topic in national politics. Parliament will also discuss it next week. Out of the 12 states where this work is happening, 26 BLOs from six states have died by suicide. Some of them said they were under so much pressure that they felt they had no other choice. This clearly shows that many BLOs were facing extreme mental stress.
Obviously, the BLOs who committed suicide must have been under extreme mental pressure, which led them to choose such a drastic path. This is a human aspect that should also be taken into account. The path suggested by the Supreme Court is more practical because no government employee can turn away from their work. It is up to the Election Commission and the state governments to ensure that they do not ignore the human aspect in any way while assigning duties to BLOs and give each BLO only as much work as is feasible for an employee. Revision does not mean that BLOs should be engaged in this work day and night. After all, they also have families and responsibilities towards them. This week, the Supreme Court extended the deadline for BLOs to submit voter forms by one week. But this does not mean that state government employees should stop working for the Election Commission. Every enlightened Indian knows that the Election Commission takes employees from state governments on deputation to carry out its work, from surveys to conducting elections. The revision or verification of voter lists is happening in India after almost 22 years. The last revision took place in 2003. However, at that time, the Booth Level Officers (BLOs) were given approximately two years to complete the task, whereas currently, they are being given only two months. Therefore, the Election Commission should have considered this in advance and requested more staff on deputation from the state governments. But the unfortunate thing is that the decision to conduct the revision was made in a hurry, which created a chaotic situation in 12 states.
India is undoubtedly a country governed by law and the constitution; therefore, the assessments of the judges must be considered very carefully. While hearing the petition, Justice Suryakant clearly stated that it is the duty of the employees to perform the work assigned to them with complete dedication. They cannot shirk their responsibilities. In India, officials travel from one state to another to conduct elections. Of course, some employees may be unwell or facing other difficulties. Therefore, the question arises as to why such employees were assigned to SIR (Special Investigation Team) duties in the first place. State governments will have to find a solution to this problem and provide alternative employees in their place. The Supreme Court has issued directives stating that wherever such problems arise, the state governments should provide additional staff to the Election Commission. In the court’s opinion, the working hours of BLOs (Booth Level Officers) can also be reduced. Furthermore, if any state government employee does not want to go on election duty due to any personal problem, the concerned senior officer should take an appropriate decision in their case and assign another employee in their place, and if there is a need to increase the number of employees, that should also be done. Clearly, the Supreme Court has considered both the human and practical aspects of the situation. That is why it has issued these directives.
