Addressing a citizens’ convention in Kolkata virtually on Tuesday, Lavasa said the revision exercise had shifted the commission’s emphasis from enrolling eligible citizens to identifying people for exclusion. He questioned whether statutory safeguards had been followed and whether officials legally responsible for maintaining electoral rolls had been allowed to exercise their powers.
Lavasa alleged that Electoral Registration Officers (EROs), who possess statutory authority to decide voter deletions, were denied access to ECINET, the commission’s centrally controlled digital system. He described this restriction as illegal, arguing that decisions affecting electoral eligibility could not bypass the officials empowered under election laws.
The former commissioner said established procedures allowed appeals against decisions by registration officers to higher electoral authorities. Centralised control of the revision process, he argued, had undermined accountability and complicated the established mechanism for challenging exclusions.
Lavasa maintained that the commission’s constitutional responsibility was to register eligible citizens and conduct elections according to schedule. He said the SIR exercise had created exceptional anxiety among voters who were uncertain whether their names would survive the verification process.
The controversy has intensified following widespread protests against alleged irregularities in electoral roll revisions. Opposition parties have demanded the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, accusing the commission of compromising electoral fairness. The commission has rejected allegations of political bias and defended its procedures.
Lavasa said the commission had introduced unprecedented distinctions between voters based on their dates of birth, linking documentation requirements to citizenship provisions. He questioned whether such classifications were consistent with the commission’s responsibility to facilitate electoral participation.
Article 326 of the Constitution establishes adult suffrage for citizens aged at least 18, subject to specified legal disqualifications. Lavasa argued that verification procedures should not reverse the presumption underlying the inclusion of eligible voters.
Referring specifically to West Bengal, he said nearly six million electors had faced adjudication during the revision exercise, apart from those omitted from draft rolls. He questioned the feasibility of resolving such a substantial number of cases before the state’s Assembly elections.
According to Lavasa, approximately 3.3 million names were restored following adjudication, demonstrating the scale of disputes surrounding the exercise. The figures underline the importance of distinguishing provisional omissions, contested registrations and final deletions when assessing the impact on voting rights.
The Election Commission informed the Supreme Court that approximately 3.83 million appeals had been filed before electoral tribunals. Around 130,000 had been decided, while 2.22 million appeals concerned excluded voters and another 1.61 million challenged inclusions.
Lavasa also questioned the transparency of decision-making within the three-member commission, following disclosures of disagreements involving election commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
He said the absence of accessible minutes of commission meetings made it difficult to determine whether significant decisions had been adopted unanimously or by majority. Such uncertainty, he argued, weakened confidence in an institution expected to operate independently.
The commission has maintained that differing opinions and observations are normal features of institutional deliberations. It has asserted that its orders carry legal authority and follow established statutory procedures, while commissioners and officials remain entitled to offer suggestions for improving electoral administration.
Lavasa warned that public confidence in election outcomes depended on the perceived neutrality of the authority supervising them. He compared the commission’s role to that of an umpire whose impartiality was essential for acceptance of the result.
The convention was organised by CPI(M) leader and lawyer Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya and former bureaucrat Jawhar Sircar. Actor and activist Prakash Raj also addressed participants, criticising the revision process and alleging that voter exclusions had affected electoral fairness.
Raj accused the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party of benefiting politically from the disputed exercise. His allegations remain contested, with the Election Commission maintaining that revisions are intended to ensure accurate electoral registers.
Separately, the commission told the Bombay High Court that absence from a draft SIR roll did not necessarily constitute final deletion. Its counsel explained that the intensive revision involved fresh enumeration and that eligible applicants could seek inclusion through prescribed procedures.
The clarification arose during proceedings concerning electoral registration in Goa, where a petitioner challenged the treatment of applications involving changes of address. The court reserved its judgment after hearing arguments about the applicable registration forms and procedural requirements.
