Considering the uproar caused from Parliament to the streets over the issue of the intensive voter list revision (SIR), the Election Commission has extended the deadline by one week. Now voters can submit their forms to the BLOs until December 11 instead of December 4. It is believed that this will also reduce some of the burden on BLOs. However, the chaos that erupted in the Lok Sabha on the very first day of the Parliament session over this issue was expected, as opposition parties were demanding that all other business be suspended and the House hold an extensive discussion on the SIR matter. The government did not agree to this, and the Lok Sabha proceedings remained disrupted throughout the day. In a democracy, this is not unusual, because the opposition often tries to corner the government on issues that agitate the public. Clearly, the matter of voter list revision has become a central national debate, and the opposition is continuously putting the Election Commission in the dock over it.
On the other hand, the Election Commission is adamant that the voter list revision work in 12 states must be completed within the stipulated timeframe. As a result, dozens of BLOs have died in various states, and several have even committed suicide. Earlier, the opposition demanded that criminal action be taken against the Election Commission because employees of different state governments on duty had committed suicide. It is noteworthy that the Election Commission takes state government employees on deputation for election-related work. These employees are usually in the third category (Class III) and serve as BLOs. The suicides of BLOs have created a perception that they are under heavy workload, which the Election Commission wants completed within just two months. Among the 12 states where the Commission is conducting voter list revisions, none are heading into elections anytime soon. Hence, the argument is being made that the Commission could have allowed at least six months for this work, reducing the burden on employees. In support of this, it is pointed out that during the previous voter list revision in 2003, a two-year time frame was given. Considering this, the two-month deadline seems indeed very short. It gives the impression that the Election Commission is in a hurry and wants to finish the work as soon as possible.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is also hearing multiple petitions filed against the SIR. It is understood that the one-week extension by the Election Commission is a result of observations made by the judges during these hearings. The bench hearing the matter is headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant. Chief Justice Surya Kant had stated that if the petitioners could prove before him that there are solid grounds for extending the deadline, he may order the Election Commission to do so. On November 26, while hearing petitions filed by the Tamil Nadu and West Bengal governments challenging the SIR, Chief Justice Surya Kant made this observation. The fundamental question remains: why is voter list revision necessary, and why is there such urgency? Indeed, the right to vote, which India’s democracy grants to every voter, is the most important constitutional right, and its sanctity must be preserved at all costs. The problem of duplicate names in voter lists is not new. Additionally, a voter’s name is often found in the lists of different states. To eliminate these flaws, the Election Commission certainly must make decisive efforts. But that does not mean BLOs should be driven to suicide in the process. The Parliament session is underway and will continue until December 19.
There should be no deadlock in Parliament over the SIR issue, and an open debate must take place so that such problems can be handled better in the future. Indeed, the argument carries weight that a direct debate on this issue cannot be initiated in the House because the Election Commission is an independent and autonomous constitutional body, and the government cannot be held responsible for its actions. However, under the broader umbrella of electoral reforms, this subject can certainly be discussed. Therefore, both the government and the opposition must reach common ground. Before the session began, the opposition had clearly stated that it wanted a debate on the SIR issue because it is currently a burning topic and people in 12 states are affected. In a democracy, the opposition has every right to raise public issues in Parliament. However, since the government, too, represents the people, it must consider every issue with full sensitivity.
