CEO, EROs at odds over SIR draft voters list hearings

Thiruvananthapuram: A sharp disagreement has arisen between the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) and Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) in Kerala over who should be called for hearings from the draft voters list issued under the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise.

While the CEO has requested that procedures be completed through document verification wherever possible to minimise inconvenience to the public, most EROs are insisting on following a formal, paper-based directive.

The difference came to light during a meeting on Saturday, convened by the CEO, which included district collectors and EROs. With the two sides at odds over the issue, CEO Dr Rathan U Kelkar expressed his displeasure with the EROs. He clarified that the responsibility for issuing notices and conducting hearings lies with the respective EROs, and they should not expect the CEO to provide a written order in this regard.

It has already been decided that notices will be sent to all individuals in the draft list whose names could not be reconciled with the previous SIR list of 2022. However, if a voter provides the necessary documents through booth-level officers or by other means, the CEO’s office proposed that hearings could be waived. No special circular or order was issued, as the matter legally falls under the ERO’s authority. Most district election officials, including collectors, supported the CEO’s suggestion, which also aligned with political parties’ requests to complete procedures without causing inconvenience to the public. It was in this context that the CEO sought cooperation from the EROs during the meeting.

Public complaints regarding decisions taken by the EROs will first be addressed by the collector, who serves as the first appellate authority. If the public remains dissatisfied with this decision, the CEO acts as the second appellate authority.

Clarification sought from observers too
Following the publication of the SIR draft voter list, observers reviewing the progress of subsequent procedures were approached by the EROs for clarification regarding who all should be called for hearings. During the meeting, the CEO sought to know why the EROs had made such inquiries despite clear guidelines already being provided.