Electoral Rolls Dynamically Evolving; RO Decision on Meenakshi Natarajan Final, Says CEC

New Delhi: Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar said that the electoral roll, which includes around 95 crore Indians, is a living document that evolves dynamically with time. Referring to the legal safeguards underlying the preparation of the electoral roll, he added that 12 lakh booth-level officers (BLOs) and 15 lakh booth-level representatives (BLAs) were involved in the process.

Speaking at the national media conference in New Delhi, CEC Kumar emphasized that the elections were held in accordance with the Constitution of India, the Electoral Laws and the instructions issued by the Election Commission of India from time to time.

He added that the election process was simultaneously monitored by stakeholders involved in the election processes in India. He noted that the highest ever poll turnout in the recent Assembly elections is testament to the confidence of Indian voters in the electoral system and the vitality of India’s democracy.

“If your name is included in the 2002 electoral rolls, it is assumed that you are a citizen,” Kumar said. “No documents are required” to participate in the ongoing special intensive revision (SIR) of the electoral roll.

Gyanesh Kumar said that the decision of the returning officer (RO) in the case involving Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan was taken in accordance with law and is the final decision under the selection process.

The CEC clarified that during every election, the candidate must submit a prescribed form containing details of all criminal cases, complaints and notifications pending against him/her. Natarajan also had to fill this form and send it. He said the candidate was given an additional day to provide the required information but did not do so within the stipulated time.

“Once a complaint is received, nothing can be done outside the prescribed legal framework. The returning officer had full authority to decide such complaints,” Kumar said. The RO exercised these legal powers in Natarajan’s case and the decision was later upheld by the Supreme Court.