New Delhi: During the discussion on electoral reforms in the Lok Sabha, Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi made a scathing attack on the government. Questioning the working style of the Modi government and the Election Commission, Rahul Gandhi not only made allegations, but also placed ‘three-four major demands’ on the table of the House, which he believes, if accepted, can end the debate of ‘vote theft’ in the country forever. Rahul Gandhi made it clear that the opposition’s fight is no longer just against one political party, but against the entire system which has been systematically ‘hijacked’.
Those three demands of Rahul Gandhi
- Machine readable voter list: Rahul Gandhi’s most important demand was that ‘machine-readable’ voter lists should be made available to all political parties before the elections. Referring to the Brazilian model, he said that there the data of every booth is made public after the elections, so that anyone can check it. In India, the Election Commission gives PDF list, which is difficult to analyze. If a machine-readable list is available, it will be easy to find out whose name was deleted and whose name was added.
- CCTV footage should not be destroyed: Rahul Gandhi raised a serious issue in the House. He asked, why is CCTV footage destroyed? This is election theft. Their demand is that the CCTV footage of counting and strong room should be kept safe, so that evidence remains available in case of any dispute. Destroying the footage proves that there is something dark in Dal.
- Access to EVM: The third major demand was that access to EVMs should be given after the elections so that its technical investigation could be possible. Rahul said that when the public does not trust the machine, then what is the harm in getting the machine checked?
Apart from this, he talked about another important reform that the ‘immunity’ (security cover) given to the election commissioners should be abolished, so that their accountability can be fixed if they take wrong decisions.
‘Election Commission is no longer an umpire but an ally of the government’
In his speech, Rahul Gandhi completely rejected the impartiality of the Election Commission. He said that there was a time when the Election Commission was institutionally independent, but today it is under the control of RSS and BJP. The Election Commission is no longer in the role of an independent umpire, rather it is working in ‘coordination’ with the ruling party. He decides the election schedule on the instructions of the government. Elections in the country are delayed for five months only so that Prime Minister Narendra Modi can get the facility to campaign, he can go everywhere in government planes. This is not a level playing field. Rahul Gandhi raised the question, why are the Prime Minister and the Home Minister so interested in the appointment of the Election Commissioner? They themselves want to decide who will be the referee, so that the outcome of the match can be decided in advance.
Haryana’s ‘model’ and photo controversy
- During the speech, a dramatic moment also came in the House when some opposition MPs from the back benches started showing a picture. The Chair objected to this. Handling the situation, Rahul Gandhi said, I do not agree with showing the photo, but this model photo has been used 22 times in Haryana elections.
- Rahul alleged that elections were stolen in Haryana and all this happened right under the nose of the Election Commission. He said, “The argument that EVMs were fine when the public put you in power for 10 years is wrong. We also win elections, but the opposition has won elections in many states with similar adverse conditions. This does not mean that the system is clean, it means that the anger of the public was so much that your entire machinery failed.”
‘RSS has captured all the institutions’
The Leader of Opposition made a direct attack on Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and said that every institution of the country has been captured by an ideology. He said, India is a fabric of 1.5 billion people, which is woven with the thread of votes. Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha, Assemblies and Panchayats, all these exist because of votes. But today RSS is trying to capture that vote and that structure.
Rahul said that this capture is not limited to the Election Commission only. RSS people are being appointed to ED, CBI, NIA and educational institutions. Vice-Chancellors in universities are being appointed not on the basis of merit, but on the basis of loyalty towards the union. He said that RSS and BJP do not believe in equality, they are destroying the basic spirit of the Constitution by weaponizing institutions.
Uproar in the House and defense of the government
The ruling party created a huge uproar over these allegations of Rahul Gandhi. Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju intervened and said that Rahul Gandhi was giving a political speech instead of speaking on electoral reforms. The speaker also interrupted Rahul Gandhi and advised him to stay on topic. But Rahul Gandhi continued his attack and said, what I am saying is the root of electoral reforms. When the umpire itself is involved, when the institutions themselves have been sold, then what is the point of technical improvements? Reforms should begin by restoring the independence of the Election Commission.
Understand from 5 questions and answers why there is difficulty in completing?
Why does the Commission shy away from providing voter lists in machine-readable (Excel/CSV) format?
The Election Commission’s argument is that the purpose of giving the voter list in PDF format is to stop ‘data mining’ and ‘voter profiling’. The Commission believes that if data is given in Excel or digital format, then political parties or private agencies (like the case of Cambridge Analytica) can misuse the data on the basis of caste, religion and age of voters. This could be a case of violation of ‘right to privacy’, although the opposition says that this data is already in the public domain, just the format is being changed.
Why is CCTV footage destroyed, what is the harm in keeping it safe?
The main reasons behind this are ‘logistics’ and ‘rules’. According to the rules of the Election Commission, the time limit for filing the Election Petition is 45 days after the result. The Commission keeps the data safe for this period. There are lakhs of booths in the country and their video recording data runs into petabytes, which is very expensive and technically difficult to store indefinitely. Therefore, if there is no court case, the old data is deleted to free up storage.
Why does the Commission refrain from allowing access or testing of EVMs?
The biggest argument of the Election Commission is of ‘security’ and ‘intellectual property’. EVM manufacturing companies (BEL and ECIL) and the Commission say that the design and source code of the machine’s microchip is confidential. If it is given to an outside person or party for testing, hackers can understand its structure and invent a way to break into it in the future. The Commission believes that ‘First Level Checking’ (FLC) and ‘Mock Poll’ alone are sufficient for transparency.
Is it possible to remove the immunity given to election commissioners?
This is not in the hands of the Election Commission, but in the hands of the Parliament. Under Article 324 and other provisions of the Constitution, the Chief Election Commissioner has the same status and protection as a Supreme Court judge, so that he can work without any political pressure. If this immunity is removed, then there can be lawsuits against them on every small and big decision, due to which the entire election process can come to a standstill. The government and the commission consider this a threat to the independence of the institution.
Has the Supreme Court ever given any instructions on these demands?
Till now the Supreme Court has been expressing confidence in the process of the Election Commission. The court has rejected the demand for 100% matching of VVPAT slips. The court believes that interfering in every technical aspect will make the election process complex and endless. The Commission builds on this judicial support that when the Supreme Court is satisfied with the existing process (like 5% VVPAT matching), there is no need to change the process by accepting new demands.
