Ashish Joshi@bismil_prasad
The Expert Group of Cockcroaches 🪳 🪳 🪳 has arrived at the conclusion that irregularities in SIR collectively portray that the SIR exercise is procedurally flawed, lacking transparency, and potentially damaging to the integrity of Indian democracy ,particularly in closely contested seats.
Conclusions of Expert Group have been prepared in question & answer format, so that it is easier for people to understand perfidy & chicanery of the Election Commission & Voiceless watcher Supreme Court
Q&A: Irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Electoral Rolls
Q1: What is the main concern regarding the method used for voter deletions in SIR?
A1: The Election Commission used an opaque “Secret Algorithm” for deleting voters, especially in West Bengal. The software and process remain non-transparent & have not been disclosed to the public
Q2: Were there transparency issues with data and evidence?
A2: Yes. The ECI refused to release booth-level CCTV footage of polling stations. Additionally, voter lists were provided in non-machine-readable formats, making public scrutiny extremely difficult
Q3: How were the voter deletions characterized?
A3: Expert group described the deletions as arbitrary and rushed. Around 91 lakh voters were excluded in what was called a “citizenship determination process by proxy”, without proper legal backing or adequate oversight
Q4: Did the ECI give consistent explanations?
A4: No. There were inconsistencies between the ECI’s statements made before the Supreme Court and its replies under RTI, raising serious questions about accountability
Q5: What problems were reported with the appeal process?
A5: In West Bengal, out of 27 lakh people excluded on grounds of “logical discrepancy”, only a couple of thousand have been heard by tribunals so far. The number of pending cases per tribunal has not been made public. Many excluded voters reportedly hold valid documents like passports and birth certificates
Q6: Was there clarity on the criteria used for deletions?
A6: No clarity was provided. The term “logical discrepancy” remains undefined. The ECI also failed to release data on how many deletions were actually based on failure to meet the eligibility criteria under Article 326 of the Constitution (the stated purpose of the SIR)
Q7: How was “discrepancy” treated during the exercise?
A7: A mere discrepancy in records was treated as disqualification and grounds for deletion — which Expert group called a travesty
Q8: Did the ECI fulfill its own responsibility?
A8: Expert group say the ECI abdicated its core role. Instead of deciding voter eligibility itself, it handed over the task to judicial officers/tribunals due to its own delays and prevarications
Q9: Did these deletions affect election outcomes?
A9: Yes, significantly. In nearly 150 constituencies (almost 50%) in West Bengal, the winning margin was smaller than the number of deleted voters, raising serious doubts about the legitimacy of results
Q10: How did the ECI respond to demands for evidence?
A10: Despite allegations of irregularities and EVM-related concerns, the ECI has been unwilling to share polling booth CCTV footage. This has undermined public confidence that the elections met the basic threshold of being free and fair
Q11: What broader institutional issues including role of Supreme Court were highlighted?
A11: There is an overall transparency crisis and institutional failure. The Supreme Court was described as a “mute spectator.” This has led to a serious erosion of public trust in the Election Commission of India
Q12: What solution has the Expert demanded?
A12: They demanded an independent audit of the ~91 lakh voter exclusions and last-minute additions to restore credibility to the electoral rolls
The Election Commission by using opaque & questionable methods & Supreme Court, by being a Mute Spectator ,have failed "We the People of India..."
Cc @abhijeet_dipke , Founding President, CJP,
@ECISVEEP & @SpokespersonECI
