M.K. Venu: Hello and welcome to this special discussion on The Wire. We're here to talk about the West Bengal elections. We have the first phase of voting tomorrow, April 23, and the second phase on April 29 and what we are witnessing in West Bengal is unprecedented in the history of Indian elections. Now so many things have happened that have created a sense of shock – things that one never imagined would happen in Indian elections have happened in West Bengal.

To start with, despite the promise by the Supreme Court that every eligible voter will be allowed to vote, we have a situation where 27 lakh voters are still waiting to get their vote eligibility cleared by a tribunal set up for the purpose. The special tribunal has not been able to examine these 27 lakh voters and their eligibility. Now who's responsible for this? Is the chief election commissioner responsible? Is the election commission responsible for this? Is the Supreme Court responsible for this?

To discuss all these issues, we have with us former Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Om Prakash Rawat who was CEC in 2018. He joined the commission as an election commissioners in 2015 and oversaw over 15 assembly elections. Welcome to our discussion: What are your views on what is going on as some 27 lakh voters await adjudication to be declared eligible voters?

Om Prakash Rawat: Thanks, Mr Venu. I must start with putting things in perspective. The election commission has a mandate under the law that before every election it has to revise the electoral roll to bring it to up to date. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with having a Special Intensive Revision (SIR). The problem started regarding the timing, because the elections were due in West Bengal, [and] everybody knew that the timing was such that there was very little time. Even then, they tried their best – the Booth Level Officers (BLO) worked very hard, the CEO worked very hard, but the [sheer] numbers thrown up of rejections, deletions and then of 'documents not available' and, lastly, on logical discrepancies, which was introduced at a later stage...

The honorable Supreme Court also got into it by setting up judicial courts and then appellate tribunals to be manned by high court appointees. All these things really took time and before these could stabilise, the elections were there. That is why all these issues have come up and I feel that if people are not able to vote despite being eligible, it will be a blot on our democracy which will be really bad for our elections.

Venu: So you rightly said that whatever the processes or nature of system put in place by the election commission, the outcome is what matters – and the outcome is that the time given was so little and the appellate tribunal system set up to adjudicate eligibility was so messy that 27 lakh voters are left out. Has this in your memory ever happened in the past? You've been a chief election commissioner and election commissioner, and in this service for decades in the past. Has anything like this as unprecedented as this in your experience happened before?

Rawat: This never happened. In fact, if we go back into history, at the time of independence, due to Partition, lakhs of voters had migrated from West Pakistan, East Pakistan to India. They were in refugee camps. Even then the first electoral roll was prepared meticulously and the elections were delivered on time in 1951-52. So this never happened, and that is why I say that this will be creating history, and if people are left out who are eligible to vote then it will be really bad for us.

Venu: That is now a foregone conclusion because tomorrow is the vote and people have got left out, there is no doubt about it, isn't it?

Rawat: This I cannot say because unless it is proven that they are eligible and then they are left out, so that [fact is something] they have to prove [through] the process.

Venu: You're right, but the process of proving eligibility itself has been flawed and that is why you are calling it a blot on democracy, right? That people have not been able to vote.

Rawat: Actually, proving that they are eligible and they have been left out will have to be done now, through election petitions, because if they are left out, then the candidate who loses can collect this information about them and can put in election petitions that so many voters who are there for me have been left out, who could not appeal, who could not get adjudication done, and that is why this election should be set aside. Only then it will be proven that, yes, something wrong has happened.

Venu: Okay. So what is the remedy? Do you think the result can come under challenge? Because this is unprecedented.

Rawat: Actually, whatever result is thrown out of [meaning emerges from] the counting of votes will be amenable to challenge under election petitions only according to our constitution and laws.

Venu: Okay.

Rawat: So long as that does not happen, we must have full faith in the Supreme Court as well in the ECI, our constitutional authority. But we must collect all the information. All the voters who have been left out, in every constituency – collect the data, collect their proof, put everything in the election petition, because the time limit for election petition is just 45 days after the results are announced. And once you put that election petition, you should ensure that a hearing is done quickly and the result of that petition comes out quickly. Once it is there, you will be able to prove whether something wrong happened or not.

Venu: Okay. So you're suggesting there is a remedy. All is not lost. That's what you suggest.

Rawat: Yes, there is a remedy.

Venu: Okay. How do you view the impressions among people, civil society leaders, ordinary people, ex-government officers, politicians, the opposition of course, that some of the things going on in West Bengal are unprecedented – for instance the paramilitary force presence in Bengal in unprecedented numbers. What do you have to say to that?

Rawat: That is very good to ensure free and fair polls and people are not intimidated. Their presence must ensure, in people's mind, that now law and order enforcing agencies are there and they can freely go to the polling station and vote according to their choice. So I think the presence of large number of paramilitary forces should be seen in that context.

Venu: You don't think that the number of paramilitary forces is totally disproportionate? I was calculating, and there is one paramilitary officer for every 30-35 voters. This is unprecedented in the annals of India's assembly election history sir.

Rawat: Actually, that is what mattered for these two-phase polls. Earlier, we used to get just one-fourth or one-fifth or one-sixth of this number of paramilitary forces and that is why we had to conduct polls in six or seven phases. They got large number thanks to the home ministry [and] they could hold the polls in two phases. So I think this should be seen as nothing more than that.

Venu: Okay. Would you see some aspects of the conduct of the election commission as unprecedented? For instance, it has officially, from its X handle, tweeted a warning to just the Trinamool Congress (TMC), the ruling party, with a list of warnings that reads like – you cannot do this, we'll watch you, we're watching you, we'll see that you don't create problems, we'll see that you don't do and a list of five or six things just for one party. Do you find that unusual? I mean normally it should be to all parties right?

Rawat: You are right – the election commission has not only to do everything fairly but it should also visibly be acting fairly. Issuing any such do's and don'ts to only one party is really partisan and it should never have been done. They should have issued all these instructions to all parties because it appears that they are giving free run to other parties and just restricting the one party.

Venu: So sir would you also describe this as completely unprecedented. Have you seen anything like this in the past in the election commission's history?

Rawat: Never before election commission would issue model code of conduct updated to all parties and ensure that all parties comply with that and if there is any violation they are taken to task.

M.K. Venu: And you've never seen any election commission in the past that would issue do's and don'ts only to one party that has never happened before right sir?

Rawat: Never never happened before.

M.K. Venu: Another critical issue debated around the country while it was in parliament was women's reservation and the constitution amendment bill on delimitation, which fell because the ruling party could not get a two-thirds majority. After that, the prime minister went on Doordarshan and gave a virtually political speech where he castigated some parties that are currently fighting elections in different states, including Tamil Nadu, West Bengal... The ruling parties in these states were castigated by the prime minister. Would you regard this as improper, inappropriate and possibly a violation of the model code of conduct?

Rawat: Actually, our model code of conduct, as of now, says anything done by the central government for the whole country, which is not specifically targeted to the poll-going states is in order, and not violation of the model code.

But I admire T.N. Seshan, the chief election commissioner during the 1990s, when he would say that if some advantage is being given to one party then that advantage must be made available to all other parties. Therefore, in this instance, the election commission should have intervened and asked the government media to provide the same time to opposition parties to explain their stand. That would have been fair and within the democratic norms.

Venu: So fair play would have demanded that either both got a slot on the official media or neither of them got it. Right?

Rawat: Correct.

Venu: So in this instance the election commission, by not giving a slot to the opposition to that extent has been unfair. Would you say that?

Rawat: Actually election commission has gone by the book – that the model code of conduct allows that and therefore it did not budge, whereas Mr Seshan used to go out of the book to ensure free and fair elections, one hundred per cent!

Venu: So the chief election commissioner should have done this as per the spirit of the model code of conduct but he did not do it because he went by the letter of the model code of conduct. Is that what you're saying?

Rawat: No. Actually, the present model code of conduct in letter and in spirit is the same. In that, nothing specific was [done] against any state or in favour of any state. So, it was a correct stand by the election commission, but looking at democratic dimensions and democratic principles and the impact it would have on the voters, they should have followed Mr T.N. Seshan and said that whatever time has been given to honorable prime minister will be given to the opposition [parties] also, to explain their stand on the issue.

Venu: Okay. But sir, I would also like to remind our viewers that the prime minister speech did attack Trinamool Congress and DMK specifically. It was not in that sense a national address. There was a strong element of criticism of the ruling party in West Bengal and the ruling party in Tamil Nadu. So how do you respond to that?

Rawat: Actually, I have not heard that address. If this was so, it was the duty of DMK and TMC to complain to the election commission and put them in judgment as to what do they think about it.

Venu: Finally returning to the larger issue: why do you think the election commission has put the onus in such a big way on the voter to prove their eligibility, either as citizen or as voter, or both? I'm also talking about the logical discrepancy category, which was never there before and puts the onus on the voter. There are many voters, such as women who get married whose names change, and then among Bengalis, "Mukherjees" are also "Mukhopadhyay", you know, there are interchangeable surnames. So when all these things are put in a computer and the EC says that it is using Artificial Intelligence (AI), it automatically throws up a lot of logical discrepancies, and these people were put in the adjudication category.

So have you seen this kind of thhing thing happen in such large numbers? I'm told even in Uttar Pradesh the same exercise going on in 10 other states and in Uttar Pradesh also the logical discrepancy category has been created. Is this fair to the voter and citizen?

Rawat: Actually, I must reiterate one of the rulings of the honorable Supreme Court from 1995 where it was said that the onus of proving the credentials to be a voter is not on the voter. He will not prove citizenship. And election commission has no locus to check universal citizenship, which means to ask every voter to provide proof of citizenship. So, going by that dictum, it appears that putting so much of the onus on a voter and that too just before elections – the poll is there and if you don't prove [citizenship] you are left out, you won't be able to vote – looks a little onerous.

Venu: Would you also regard this process as as some kind of punishment? One expected that the Supreme Court would pronounce on the basic question of law. When the West Bengal petition went there, the Supreme Court also kind of got involved in this whole messy process of adjudication, creation of tribunals where people would stand in line and try to [dis]prove their logical discrepancy against their name was not correct et cetera. And finally, about two days ago, the TMC went to the court with another petition saying that in the last 6-7 weeks an unusually large number of new voters are also being registered by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

They're citing numbers like six lakh, seven lakh [additions] and, apparently, the election commission has rules on registration of new voters under Form 6, where the individual should come and register himself or herself but here a lot of bulk registrations are happening through the party process. How would you look at this? On the one hand deletions, on the other, massive additions – is there something wrong with the whole process?

Rawat: Actually, in the past, the election commission had strict instructions that not more than one form should be accepted from an individual. In special cases, when he is representing his whole family, then it may be four or five or six members of a family and only those many forms could be accepted.

Accepting forms in bulk has always been prohibited. Always it is mandated that nobody will accept these forms in bulk and if at all somebody submits or throws them at you you will reject all of them. So this practice is totally illegal, totally improper and unethical. It should never have been done.

Second thing is that while the process is on, Form 6 can be accepted till the last day of nomination and names can be added. That is the law. That is the law.

Venu: But they have to be genuine. It has to come from the individual concerned, right? The individual. Not somebody coming with 200 forms on behalf of 200 individuals.

Rawat: Absolutely no. Absolutely no.

Venu: So this never happened during your time, right?

Rawat: Never. Not only my time but every time election commission was of this view and these instructions were there for the institution.

Venu: My last question. Would you agree that there are a lot of things happening now that never used to happen earlier? Like forms being brought in bulk, voters being registered in bulk, mass deletions being requested through computers as established in Aland and Mahadevapura, in Karnataka? [Congress leader] Rahul Gandhi had done that exercise to prove mass online deletion applications.

And another unprecedented thing we have seen in the last few years, which former CEC S.Y. Quraishi also talks about the fact that at the end of the day the voting percentage why is that suddenly voting percentages are not clearly known at the end of the day. Mr. Quraishi says that this never used to happen earlier because a computer is meant to help you get a real time voting percentage but that's not been happening in the last few years. Would you say that this is also unprecedented never used to happen earlier?

Rawat: First of all, let me state at the outset that there are many political things which you stated; I won't go into those political allegations.

Venu: I'm only going by the election commission giving a firm percentage of votes by, say, 10:00–11:00 in the nighttime.

Rawat: Yeah, this is not accurate. My senior colleague Dr S.Y. Quraishi, I respect him a lot. But when he says that it never happened, it is not correct factually because it always happened that –

Venu: No, sir, let me correct. Mr Quraishi doesn't say that it never happened. He says that if it happened, at that time, the margin of error would be, maybe under 1% or 1.5%. It would never be that you arrive at a certain percentage and the final figure at the time of counting [changes a lot].

Sometimes, even at the time of counting, there is an increase of 5%–6% in the [voter turnout], which has been seen in Andhra Pradesh, and it has been seen in Odisha during the 2024 election. The margin of the increase has been quite a lot in recent years.

Rawat: No, actually, this was because of some confusion at the stage of complaint. For example, in Maharashtra, I myself investigated that at 5 [pm] this was the turnout figure and at 11 [pm] this was the turnout figure [two different numbers]. Now, you forgot that the closing of poll was 6 pm, not 5 pm. So, from 5 to 6 pm – because, generally, what happens during summers is that a high number of voters turn out to vote in the early morning hours and late evening hours – so, five from to six [in the evening], there would have been at least 2–3% voting.

That must be taken into account. The second thing is that at 6 pm, when the closing of poll takes place, as many voters are there in the queue have to be distributed a slip, and all of them have to be taken inside for voting. So, that number also adds another 2%. So, if 4% or 5% increase is there, it is not very high. That is what I would like to say.

And turnout figures finally can be given only after the observer has scrutinised all the records, polling records, the valid account[ing] that takes place after about one day of the poll.

Venu: What about the final figures, given at night, say 10 pm or 11 pm final figures, and then at the time of counting, after four five days, there emerges a gap of 4-5% that has also been seen in many states. This has been recorded so in many states – a gap of 4–5–6% between both election commission figures – at the end of the poll nad at the time of counting, after five days.

Rawat: There is a possibility of this [happening], but we must compare the final figures after the observer's inspection that is after one day. Whatever final figure of turnout is given, that has to be matched during the counting, and there has been no complaint that there has been any major discrepancy in these two figures.

Venu: So, yes, there is a dispute on that, because many civil society organisations have found discrepancies, but that is a separate issue. So, sir, finally would you say that a lot of things need to be remedied in the elections that are going to come in the next say two or three years? We have the Uttar Pradesh elections coming up next year. So many of these mistakes, whether it is in the process or otherwise [are] unfair to the voters. Would you agree that they need to be remedied with urgency?

Rawat: I feel that if the SIR is to be done in most of these states which will be polling, I think 2027 poll-going states have already got it done so there won't be any issue of lack of time or lack of adjudication. All those problems will not be there.

The remaining states also, I think the election commission should unleash the SIR thing now so that when they go for polls in 2029 or before that, there is no problem. So I don't foresee that these kinds of problems will come up in other state elections.

Venu: Okay. You're suggesting that West Bengal is in some sense an exception?

Rawat: This time it has been exception because of two three reasons. One is timing. Second is large number of people not getting relief by the honorable Supreme Court setup because tribunals could not function and could not be set up. Time was running out and therefore they could not get their final relief. So only on those counts one can say that.

Venu: Thank you very much, Mr O.P. Rawat, for talking to us taking time out from your holiday in San Francisco. It's been nice of you to give us time. Thank you very much.

Rawat: Thank you Mr Venu. Thank you. All the best.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.