Tribune News Service
New Delhi, August 24
The Election Commission (EC) of India has made an alleged exception of its personal coverage and apply by sharing electoral database of northeast Delhi voters with the police for figuring out the accused of the February 2020 communal violence within the metropolis.
The allegation was levelled by a Right to Information Act (RTI) activist, Saket Gokhale, on the idea of a response he obtained.
‘No rule violated’
The anecdotal studies usually are not based mostly on information… the fee has not deviated in any method from the unique pointers of 2008 and clarificatory orders of 2020. – Election Commission
Sharing on Twitter a letter from the EC, Gokhale alleged the whole voter checklist together with photographs was handed over illegally to the Delhi Police to allow identification of the accused in violation of norms.
Responding to the allegation, the ballot panel asserted in an announcement that it had not violated any rule.
In the letter dated March 6, the ballot panel directed the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) of Delhi to “share the electoral roll along with images of electors of North-East parliamentary constituency” with the police.
The response got here after the CEO flagged to the EC that the “electoral database of entire Assembly constituency or district should not be shared with the police as it violated the commission’s policy and practice”.
The EC, nevertheless, insisted within the letter that because the police needed to match the photographs with CCTV visuals of the violence, these be shared with the investigating officer.
Gokhale mentioned: “The EC violated rules by making available to the police the entire voter list with photos after the Delhi violence. This is an easy way to identify the minorities living in any area.”
Responding to the cost, the ballot panel mentioned, “The anecdotal reports are not based on facts… the commission has not deviated in any manner from the original guidelines of 2008 and clarificatory orders of 2020.”
The fee famous that so far as felony investigations by regulatory or enforcement companies had been involved, “it was under their own extant Acts, rules and guidelines, which in any case could be challenged in court”.