The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to make public, on the website of each district electoral officer in Bihar, the names of around 65 lakh people whose names were excluded or deleted from the state’s draft electoral rolls, along with the reasons for their removal.
The top court also ordered that booth-wise lists be physically displayed at Panchayat Bhawans, block development offices and panchayat offices, and widely publicised through local newspapers, Doordarshan, radio and official social media channels so that people can access them both online and offline.
The apex court’s direction comes amid concerns over alleged large-scale deletions in the ongoing Special Electoral Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar.
Hearing the contentious case over the state’s electoral rolls, the SC bench told ECI to obtain compliance reports from all booth-level and district-level officers and file them before the next hearing on August 22.
Against the backdrop of what it described as “sharp political hostility” in Bihar, the poll body argued it has a “reservoir of power” to take necessary decisions and estimated that around 6.5 crore voters in the state would not be required to submit any documents for the SIR.
SC seeks details of 2003 electoral roll revision in Bihar
The Supreme Court also asked the Election Commission to inform about the documents considered during the 2003 intensive electoral roll revision in the state.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, which resumed the hearing on pleas challenging the June 24 ECI decision to conduct the SIR in Bihar, said, “We would like ECI to state what documents were taken in 2003 exercise.”
The remarks came after advocate Nizam Pasha, appearing for one of the parties, referred to the court reportedly saying “if the date of January 1, 2003 (the date of earlier SIR) goes then everything goes”.
“I must submit that nothing was there to show why this date is there... The impression sought to be conveyed is that it is the earlier date when the intensive exercise for revision of the electoral roll was held. It is stated that the EPIC (voter) card issued then is more reliable than issued during summary exercises conducted from time to time, is incorrect,” Pasha said.
He argued that if the process of enrolling under intensive and summary revisions was the same, then EPIC cards issued under summary exercises could not be discarded.
Calling the 2003 date “invalid” and not based on “intelligible differentia”, he also raised concerns over booth-level discretion, saying, “No receipt of my enumeration form is being given or any documents acknowledging the receipt is given and therefore the booth level officers have an upper hand and these lower level officers have too much discretion on whether the form has to be taken or not.”
Senior advocate Shoeb Alam, appearing for another petitioner, said the reasons given in the ECI notification were insufficient and that the process “was neither ‘summary’ nor ‘intensive’ but just a creation of the notification.” He added, “This is a process of voter registration and cannot be a process of disqualification. This is a process to welcome and not turn this into a process to unwelcome.”
On August 13, the bench had noted that electoral rolls cannot remain “static” and that revision is inevitable, observing that the expanded list of acceptable identity documents in the Bihar SIR—from seven to 11—was “voter-friendly and not exclusionary.” It also said the ECI had the residual power to carry out such an exercise and disagreed with the petitioners’ claim that the SIR had no basis in law and should be quashed.
The SIR has drawn political fire in poll-bound Bihar, with opposition parties including the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) and Congress, as well as the Association of Democratic Reforms (ADR), challenging the drive in court.
(With inputs from agencies)
The top court also ordered that booth-wise lists be physically displayed at Panchayat Bhawans, block development offices and panchayat offices, and widely publicised through local newspapers, Doordarshan, radio and official social media channels so that people can access them both online and offline.
The apex court’s direction comes amid concerns over alleged large-scale deletions in the ongoing Special Electoral Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar.
Hearing the contentious case over the state’s electoral rolls, the SC bench told ECI to obtain compliance reports from all booth-level and district-level officers and file them before the next hearing on August 22.
Against the backdrop of what it described as “sharp political hostility” in Bihar, the poll body argued it has a “reservoir of power” to take necessary decisions and estimated that around 6.5 crore voters in the state would not be required to submit any documents for the SIR.
SC seeks details of 2003 electoral roll revision in Bihar
The Supreme Court also asked the Election Commission to inform about the documents considered during the 2003 intensive electoral roll revision in the state.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, which resumed the hearing on pleas challenging the June 24 ECI decision to conduct the SIR in Bihar, said, “We would like ECI to state what documents were taken in 2003 exercise.”
The remarks came after advocate Nizam Pasha, appearing for one of the parties, referred to the court reportedly saying “if the date of January 1, 2003 (the date of earlier SIR) goes then everything goes”.
“I must submit that nothing was there to show why this date is there... The impression sought to be conveyed is that it is the earlier date when the intensive exercise for revision of the electoral roll was held. It is stated that the EPIC (voter) card issued then is more reliable than issued during summary exercises conducted from time to time, is incorrect,” Pasha said.
He argued that if the process of enrolling under intensive and summary revisions was the same, then EPIC cards issued under summary exercises could not be discarded.
Calling the 2003 date “invalid” and not based on “intelligible differentia”, he also raised concerns over booth-level discretion, saying, “No receipt of my enumeration form is being given or any documents acknowledging the receipt is given and therefore the booth level officers have an upper hand and these lower level officers have too much discretion on whether the form has to be taken or not.”
Senior advocate Shoeb Alam, appearing for another petitioner, said the reasons given in the ECI notification were insufficient and that the process “was neither ‘summary’ nor ‘intensive’ but just a creation of the notification.” He added, “This is a process of voter registration and cannot be a process of disqualification. This is a process to welcome and not turn this into a process to unwelcome.”
On August 13, the bench had noted that electoral rolls cannot remain “static” and that revision is inevitable, observing that the expanded list of acceptable identity documents in the Bihar SIR—from seven to 11—was “voter-friendly and not exclusionary.” It also said the ECI had the residual power to carry out such an exercise and disagreed with the petitioners’ claim that the SIR had no basis in law and should be quashed.
The SIR has drawn political fire in poll-bound Bihar, with opposition parties including the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) and Congress, as well as the Association of Democratic Reforms (ADR), challenging the drive in court.
(With inputs from agencies)
You may also like
Op Sindoor: 9 IAF fighter pilots awarded Vir Chakra; see list
Prince Andrew's 'odd Royal Lodge game' that Sarah Ferguson 'doesn't like'
ITV The X Factor's Tulisa says it's a 'miracle' she survived suicide attempt after year from hell
My orchids died all the time—now I follow 5 rules so my plant flowers repeatedly
UAE: Flydubai to receive 12 aircraft this year, still 20 behind its original projections
