Manipur Sentinel

The Indian Express investigation of 4th November reports that the ECI has reversed almost every SIR-related direction questioned by its own two Election Commissioners. Changes concerning Form 6, hearings, documentation and powers of field officers have followed. Corrections are welcome. But why were the objections not addressed earlier? Who accounts for the hardship caused to voters? Three questions arise: 1.Who initiated these directions, and at what level was their impact examined and approved? 2.What do the files record about objections raised, decisions taken and instructions given for drafting and issuing the orders? 3.If established procedures were followed, why were so many directions subsequently reversed? If they were not, how were the original orders authorised? ECI’s portal says how the officers who form the Secretariat are taken on deputation or appointed by the Commission. Serving IAS and Central Civil Service officers remain subject to the applicable Conduct Rules, even when working in constitutional bodies. Those rules apply to all serving government officers regardless of the place of official duty. Administrative accountability starts with officers who drafted or issued the orders and extends through the entire chain of decision-making to the authority that approved the issue of orders on file. Because directions affecting electoral procedures must ultimately be communicated in writing. The relevant files, approvals, correspondence and issued orders should therefore make it possible to reconstruct how the decisions originated, were modified and finally communicated. If the records are incomplete or unavailable, that too calls for an explanation. The ECI should make the relevant decision records available for scrutiny and if necessary, an appropriate independent inquiry should examine the entire sequence. Such an examination need not be prolonged if the records are properly maintained. The manual of office procedure lays down how files have to be maintained and recepit and dispatch recorded in registers maintained by the personal staff of officers and by the concerned sections. Secretariat procedures are often dismissed as bureaucratic red tape. Recorded decision-making is not red tape. It is an essential safeguard of institutional accountability. The ECI files would show precisely how responsibility was exercised at each level.