New Delhi, Dec 9 (NationPress) During a pivotal discussion in the Lok Sabha regarding electoral reforms, the Opposition reverted to predictable arguments, advocating for a halt to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of India’s electoral rolls and a shift back to paper ballots.

Opening the debate for the Opposition, Congress MP Manish Tewari highlighted both concerns, supported by other allies from the INDIA bloc, including Akhilesh Yadav of the Samajwadi Party. They referenced practices in countries like the USA and Germany.

However, by 2024, India's population far exceeds that of the United States, being more than four times larger, while Germany’s population, at over 70 lakh, is even less than that of West Bengal.

When the Leader of the Opposition, Rahul Gandhi, contributed to the debate, he reiterated his familiar “vote chori” slogan. What the Opposition overlooked is that SIR is a well-established process, conducted meticulously since India’s inaugural general election, having been executed eight times to purify the electoral rolls of ineligible, duplicate, or deceased voters.

According to Section 21(2) of The Representation of the People Act, 1950, the electoral roll “should be revised in the prescribed manner” before elections, directed by the Election Commission of India (ECI). Additionally, it states that the roll “shall be revised in any year in the prescribed manner by reference to the qualifying date if such revision has been directed by the ECI…”.

Section 21(3) permits the ECI to “direct a special revision of the electoral roll for any constituency or part of a constituency as deemed necessary, ensuring the electoral roll remains in place until the process concludes.

On the matter of EVMs, when the former Chief Election Commissioner S. L. Shakdhar approached the Electronics Corporation of India Limited (ECIL) in 1977 to explore the feasibility of such a machine, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) had not yet been established in its current form. The prototype emerged in 1979, before the BJP's official inception.

Since their phased introduction across elections, except in some local body polls, the EVMs have often been the target of skepticism, typically from the losing party.

A well-known excerpt from former CEC S. Y. Quraishi in his book ‘India’s Experiment with Democracy: The Life of a Nation Through Its Elections’ asserts, “The issue of ‘tamperability’ of EVMs has been discussed since their inception. Each time a political entity loses an election, it blames the machines. However, none has provided proof against the credibility of EVMs, nor do they apologize when they win elections using the same EVMs.”

Former CEC Navin Chawla also commented, “The EVM continues to be buffeted in stormy seas…” in his book ‘Every Vote Counts: The Story of India’s Elections’. In comparing democracies that reverted to paper ballots, countries like the Netherlands have populations far less than Delhi, and Ireland has a population less than a quarter of the National Capital. Consequently, counting ballots physically in India could take days, potentially weeks in certain instances.