Former Election Commissioner Ashok Lavasa has questioned the fairness of the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, arguing that an exercise being considered legal may still fall short of the principles of justice.
Lavasa described the SIR as an unfair procedure being imposed on millions of people. He said that while the judiciary has validated the exercise and the government has termed it legal, the larger question was whether it was fair.
‘Justice Is About Fairness’
“Of course it is legal. But is it fair? That is the question. Because that is what justice is all about,” Lavasa said while delivering the Jagdeep Singh Chhokar Memorial Lecture organised by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) in New Delhi on Thursday.
Lavasa said statutory institutions, constitutional bodies and governments increasingly appeared to function on the principle that whatever they did was right simply because it was legally permissible.
His argument draws a distinction between legality and fairness. In an exercise involving electoral rolls, that distinction assumes significance because the process directly concerns citizens’ ability to participate in elections.
‘Might Is Right’ Is Outdated
Describing the SIR as an unfair procedure imposed on millions of citizens, Lavasa said “might is right” was an outdated concept. Institutions entrusted with implementing the law must also uphold its spirit, he said.
Justice was not merely about enforcing the letter of the law but also about protecting its spirit, Lavasa said, PTI reports.
He maintained that while authorities may argue that everything being done under the SIR was legal, it was “definitely not fair”.
13 Crore Deletions Questioned
Lavasa also questioned the rationale behind the deletion of 13 crore names from electoral rolls and asked whether adequate efforts were being made to ensure that the exercise did not alienate voters.
Pointing to anxiety surrounding the revision, he said 33% of people do not vote and warned that such large-scale changes could further “disenchant” citizens with the democratic process.
The concern raised by Lavasa goes beyond the mechanics of revising voter lists. His remarks put the focus on whether a legally permissible electoral exercise can command public confidence if a large number of citizens feel alienated by the process.
EC Claims Draw Opposition Fire
As the Election Commission (EC) was preparing for the SIR in Bihar, its officials had claimed that its grassroots-level functionaries found several nationals from Bangladesh, Nepal and Myanmar.
However, the poll authority did not provide numbers or proof concerning such people who were allegedly not eligible to be on the voters’ list.
Opposition parties had dubbed the EC’s claims a ploy to carry out the SIR to target electors who were not aligned with the BJP and its allies.
The competing claims underline the political sensitivity surrounding the revision. Lavasa’s remarks add another dimension to the debate by asking whether meeting the requirements of law alone is enough for an exercise that can affect millions of voters.
