The Probe: National: Thursday, 8 August 2024.
Election Commission of India faces criticism after stating they do not have information on Returning Officers. Critics question if the ECI lacks such basic details, then who conducted the elections.
On May 14th, 2024, after the
fourth phase of polling, an RTI application was filed by Venkatesh Nayak, the
Director of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI). The information
sought was fairly simple. Nayak asked the Election Commission of India (ECI) to
disclose a complete list of all Returning Officers currently serving across
every State and Union Territory in India. The information requested was
elementary: the names, designations, telephone numbers, and email addresses of
these officials.
This seemingly basic information, which should ideally be accessible on the ECI’s website, was conspicuously missing, prompting Nayak to submit his RTI request. In his application, Nayak pointed out a glaring issue: “Despite your Commission creating a webpage intended to list the State and Union Territory-wise names and contact details of Chief Electoral Officers, many of these websites fail to provide this information. With over 800 administrative districts across the country, which overlap with the 543 Lok Sabha constituencies, it is nearly impossible for an average citizen to differentiate between District Election Officers (DEOs) and Returning Officers (ROs). Given that the list of ROs is not available on your official site, I am left with no choice but to formally request this information through an RTI petition.”
What unfolds next is deeply troubling. For 30 days, the Election Commission of India fails to respond, withholding basic information that should have been publicly accessible. After this prolonged silence, Nayak is compelled to file a First RTI Appeal. This appeal is a statutory recourse available when a Public Information Officer does not respond within the prescribed time limit.
Election Commission of India faces criticism after stating they do not have information on Returning Officers. Critics question if the ECI lacks such basic details, then who conducted the elections.
This seemingly basic information, which should ideally be accessible on the ECI’s website, was conspicuously missing, prompting Nayak to submit his RTI request. In his application, Nayak pointed out a glaring issue: “Despite your Commission creating a webpage intended to list the State and Union Territory-wise names and contact details of Chief Electoral Officers, many of these websites fail to provide this information. With over 800 administrative districts across the country, which overlap with the 543 Lok Sabha constituencies, it is nearly impossible for an average citizen to differentiate between District Election Officers (DEOs) and Returning Officers (ROs). Given that the list of ROs is not available on your official site, I am left with no choice but to formally request this information through an RTI petition.”
What unfolds next is deeply troubling. For 30 days, the Election Commission of India fails to respond, withholding basic information that should have been publicly accessible. After this prolonged silence, Nayak is compelled to file a First RTI Appeal. This appeal is a statutory recourse available when a Public Information Officer does not respond within the prescribed time limit.
.JPG)
.JPG)
