The measures announced by the Election Commission of India to address concerns over the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls and the functioning of the Commission were expected to calm a controversy that has been building for months. Instead, this has raised more queries as to why several of these safeguards, clarifications and corrective mechanisms were not applied from the start? These measures may address some immediate difficulties, but they do not answer the larger questions raised by the reported dissent. If two of the three commissioners repeatedly raised objections, citizens deserve to know what those objections were and why the disputed decisions were ultimately adopted. The changes proposed by the Commission do not neutralise the illegality of the revision process or make up for the inconvenience it has caused the voters. They are an admission of operational discrepancies in the constitutional body. Far from being a credible defence, they have amplified calls to halt the SIR and hold CEC Gyanesh Kumar accountable for its failings. The ECI's challenge is therefore not simply to contain political criticism. It must demonstrate transparency, institutional accountability and procedural fairness.
GREGORY FERNANDES, Mumbai
