The Election Commission of India fails Chakma and Hajongs of Arunachal Pradesh
From 1999, the Chakma and Hajong tribal communities have been submitting claims (Form no.6 under Registration of Electors’ Rules, 1960) for inclusion of names in the electoral rolls. Initially, the Electoral Registration Officers, who are also employees of the State Government of Arunachal Pradesh simply refused to accept the claims of the eligible Chakma and Hajong voters. They cited the grounds like absence of specific order from the Election Commission of India to enroll the Chakmas and Hajongs as electors and that the Chakmas and Hajongs are not citizens of India.
Chakma voters in Arunachal Pradesh during the parliamentary
elections in May 2004
The Committee for Citizenship Rights of the Chakmas and Hajongs of Arunachal Pradesh (CCRCHAP), formed in 1991 to campaign for the attainment of constitutional and basic rights for the Chakmas and Hajongs, approached the Election Commission in 1998. But, the Election Commission failed to ensure enrollment of the eligible Chakma and Hajong voters in the electoral rolls.
Meanwhile, CCRCHAP also filed a petition before the National Human Rights Commission, among others, seeking directions from the NHRC to the Government of India to issue a notification declaring that those Chakmas and Hajongs who were born between 1964 and 1st July 1987 are citizens of India by birth under Section 3(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 and are therefore eligible for enrolment in the voters list. In response to CCRCHAP’s petition, NHRC sought replies from the Government of India as well as the State Government of Arunachal Pradesh. In its reply, the Government of Arunachal Pradesh stated, “… if at all any in this regard has to be issued, this has to be done by the Central Government and the State Government is not competent to amend any Central Act or rules framed thereunder.” On its part, the Government of India stated, “…as per provisions of the Citizenship Act, 1955, every person born in India on or after 26 January 1950 and before 1st July 1987 are citizens of India by birth and therefore are eligible for inclusion in the Electoral Rolls.”
Pursuant to the order of the NHRC, the eligible Chakma and Hajong voters again submitted claims for inclusion of names but the local electoral officials refused to receive. The matter was taken up with the Election Commission of India in Delhi but the Election Commission again failed to ensure receipt of claims of the Chakmas and Hajongs by the local electoral officials. Aggrieved by repeated failure of the Election Commission, the CCRCHAP and Peoples’ Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) filed a public interest litigation (Civil Writ Petition No.886 of 2000) in the Delhi High Court in 2000. The operative paragraphs of the Judgement dated 28 September 2000 read as under-
“3. There is practically no dispute on the question that a person acquires citizenship by birth if either of the parents is a citizen of India at the time of his birth and also a person, who is born in India in 1950 but before the commencement of Amendment Act is a citizen of India. The aforesaid conditions are mutually exclusive of each other and are not conjoint. Obviously if a person claims to be citizen of India, for the purpose of inclusion of his/her name in the electoral roll, material to substantiate the claim of citizenship has to be produced. Learned counsel for the Commission stated that if such material is produced, obviously, the same shall be considered and the decision shall be taken as to whether the claim of citizenship is correct or not. The claim obviously is relatable for the purpose of inclusion in the electoral roll. So far the State Election Commission’s role is concerned, it has to be also established that for the purpose of inclusion in the State electoral roll, the applicants have to satisfy the requirement of residence or such other conditions as may be stipulated in law. Therefore, in case any person, who claims inclusion in the electoral roll, produces material to that effect, same shall be considered by the Commission and/or the State Commission as the case may be. It goes without saying that decision in this regard will be taken within a reasonable time”.
However, the Delhi High Court judgement continued to be flouted both by the State Government and the Election Commission. The local electoral officials in the four Chakma- Hajong inhabited Assembly segments of 14-Doimukh, 46-Chowkham, 49-Bordumsa-Diyun and 50-Miao summarily rejected thousands of claim forms of the Chakmas and Hajongs on fictitious and whimsical grounds. The Election Commission failed to take any action when the arbitrary decisions of the local electoral officials have been brought to its notice. In 2002, the CCRCHAP and PUCL had to again approach the Delhi High Court by way of a Contempt petition.
In 2002, 9 Polling Stations in 49- Bordumsa-Diyun; 2 Polling Stations in 50-Miao Assembly Constituency; and 1 Polling Station in 46-Chowkham Assembly Constituency were created for the Chakma-Hajong villages. In 2003, Election Commission of India ordered Special Summary Revision of electoral rolls in the Chakma and Hajong inhabited constituencies. However, the majority of the Chakma and Hajong citizens could not be included into the electoral rolls as the Electoral Registration Officers rejected their applications on frivolous grounds. Out of total 11,110 claims submitted, names of only 1497 Chakmas and Hajongs were accepted after the hearing. However, in order to block the publishing of these names finally in the electoral rolls, the Arunachal Pradesh State Cabinet passed a resolution dated 14 May 2003, directing that non- Arunachalese shall not be entitled to be enrolled in the electoral rolls in the State unless they possessed Inner Line Permits under the Bengal East Area and Frontier Regulation Act, 1873, having a minimum validity period of six months. Apparently, the above said resolution of the State Cabinet, the concerned Electoral Registration Officers rejected the said accepted claims.
As the Government of Arunachal Pradesh failed to withdraw the above said resolution despite request by the Election Commission of India, in an order dated 2 January 2004 the Election Commission of India suspended all electoral activities including preparation and revision of electoral rolls in these four assembly constituencies. Subsequently, in an order dated 3 March 2004, the Election Commission of India revoked its 2 January 2004 order in view of the General Elections to the Lok Sabha. However, it directed that the names of 1,497 Chakma and Hajong voters whose claims have been initially accepted but later rejected shall be enrolled in the electoral rolls. Names of these 1,497 Chakma and Hajong voters have been finally published in electoral rolls and they participated in the last Parliamentary and Arunachal Pradesh State Assembly Elections in 2004.
From 1 October 2005, the Election Commission of India carried out Intensive Revision of electoral rolls throughout Arunachal Pradesh. Earlier on 23 March 2005, the Election Commission of India issued specific guidelines for enrollment of the eligible Chakma and Hajong voters during the Intensive Revision. Instead of complying with those guidelines, the Electoral Registration Officers and Assistant Electoral Registration Officers and other electoral officers who are also employees of the State Government summarily rejected the claims of the Chakma and Hajong citizens for inclusion of their names. The Election Commission of India suspended publication of electoral rolls of all four Chakma and Hajong inhabited State Assembly constituencies. In February 2006, the Election Commission of India also sent a team consisting of Mr. K.R. Prasad, Secretary and Mr. Narendra N. Butolia, Under Secretary for enquiry into the violations/irregularities by the local electoral officials. In its report dated 14 February 2006, the team, inter alia, stated –
“Though the EROs have informed that all the Commission’s directions have been scrupulously followed but it is more than clear that they have not only decided not to enroll any new Chakma but they also intend to delete names of those Chakmas who were included in the last roll……”.
The report further added –
“It is evident that under these circumstances, not even a single Chakma will have his name in the roll when it is finally published ……”.
Yet, the Election Commission of India failed to act. It simply declared the Intensive Revision 2005 as inconclusive and on 1 February 2007, the Election Commission of India ordered the conduct of Special Summary revision of electoral rolls. But in order to derail the process, the State Government has sought postponement of the revision citing problems of “law and order”. On the other hand, on 20 February 2007, the State Chief Minister Mr. Gegong Apang demanded a “peace bonus” for Arunachal Pradesh for maintaining its status of “Island of Peace” since its inception as a State in 1987. However, the Election Commission of India succumbed to the traps of the State Government and postponed the revision process indefinitely.
Again on 6 September 2007, the Election Commission of India ordered the conduct of Special Summary Revision of electoral rolls. Though the Election Commission of India issued specific guidelines as to how to conduct the revision of electoral rolls in the Chakma and Hajong areas the same were grossly violated as earlier. The local electoral officials did not comply with the guidelines at all and instead imposed their own whimsical directions to ensure that even the 1,497 previously enrolled voters are deleted. As many as 36 out of 326 of them were deleted in 14- Chowkham Assembly Constituency even before beginning of the Special Summary Revision 2007.
In 49-Bordumsa-Diyun and 50-Miao Assembly Constituencies, several Chakma villages were not even officially informed about the revision process and the same were covered only after the Election Commission of India issued specific instructions following complaints from the CCRCHAP. The Chakma and Hajong claimants were subjected to harassments, humiliation and were openly discriminated by electoral officers led by none other than the Deputy Commissioner of Changlang district Hage Batt, who has been designated as Electoral Registration Officer of 49-Bordumsa-Diyun and 50-Miao Assembly Constituencies. Mr. Batt wanted to harass the Chakma and Hajong claimants and therefore instead of conducting the hearing of claims and objections at Diyun, sat at Bordumsa, which is 60 kilometers away from Diyun. As there is no means of transportation between Bordumsa and Diyun, none out of 7,311 Chakma and Hajong claimants from Diyun Circle could appear for hearing. The hearings were re-held at Diyun only after the Election Commission intervened on complaints from the CCRCHAP. Taking cognizance of the blatant violations of its guidelines by the local electoral officials, the Election Commission of India deputed two teams to the four Chakma-Hajong inhabited Assembly Constituencies. But justice eluded the Chakma and Hajong citizens as the Election Commission has again failed them. In February 2008, the Election Commission ordered the publishing of final rolls in three of the four Assembly Constituencies namely 14-Doimukh, 46-Chowkham, and 50-Miao while keeping the 49- Bordumsa-Diyun in abeyance till further orders. Out of about one thousand eligible voters, names of only 201 claimants were included in the electoral rolls in 14-Doimukh while in 46-Chowkham, out of more than 1,400 new claimants names of only 14 were enrolled and names of 44 previously enrolled voters were deleted. Similarly, in 50-Miao, only 1 out of about 4,500 new claimants was included in the electoral roll. From 28-30 April 2008, a two-member team of the Election Commission of India consisting of Mr. Standhope Yuhlung, Secretary and Mr. S. K. Rudola, Secretary, verified 8,647 claims of Chakma- Hajong claimants and 1,115 objections filed against Chakma-Hajong voters at the office of the Chief Electoral Officer, Itanagar and inter alia, recommended as under-
“In view of the above, it is recommended that the ERO should re-verify all (464 + 63 = 527) objections upheld by him”.
“After scrutinizing the claims documents and disposals, we strongly felt that ERO should re-verify all (526 and 4291 claims who have produced birth certificates and Refugee Identity Cards of their parents) by causing local verification and also randomly check and re-verify the cases between 18-25 years of age who have submitted birth certificates”.
Pursuant to these recommendations, the Election Commission ordered that the Electoral Registration Officer of 49-Bordumsa-Diyun Assembly Constituency should re-verify all 4,817 claims of the Chakmas and Hajongs earlier rejected by him as well as all the 527 objections against Chakma and Hajong voters upheld by him. From 25 June-3 July 2008, re-verification was conducted and the ERO has sent a detailed report to the Election Commission of India. As expected, only 253 of the total of 531 objections filed against Chakma and Hajong voters have been rejected and their names were not deleted from the electoral rolls while only 282 of the total 8647 new claimants have been enrolled. As earlier, majority of the claims of the Chakma and Hajong citizens have been summarily rejected and the most objections against their voters have been upheld to ensure least possible inclusion of Chakma and Hajong voters in the electoral rolls.
It is evident that the Election Commission of India has failed to employ its powers provided under Clause (1) of Article 324 of the Indian Constitution which provides that the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to Parliament and to the Legislature of every State and of elections to the offices of President and Vice-President held under this Constitution shall be vested in it.