The Supreme Court on Wednesday observed that the Election Commission (ECI) decision to expand the list of acceptable documents for evidence of citizenship under the Special Intensive Amendment (SIR) in Bihar seemed to be “voter friendly” and gave more options to establish eligibility.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymlya Bagchi noticed that it could be restrictive to ask for only one document, but it was more inclusive to allow voters to present one of many options. “If they ask for all 11 documents, it is opposed to. But if one of the documents is sought, then they are expanding the number of documents … It is now 11 instead of 7 items by which you can identify yourself as a citizen,” this comment.
The bench also stated that the list of documents is usually prepared after taking feedback from several government departments to maximize coverage. “This is a battle between a constitutional right and a constitutional right- amidst Article 324, the power of the ECI and the rights of voters of voters under Article 326,” said the bench.
The court has seized a group of petitions challenging the ECI’s 24 June directive, which orders a head before the upcoming Bihar assembly elections. The petitioners, including NGOs, political leaders and activists, have alleged that the process, if left uncontrolled, can reduce millions of legitimate voters and free and fair elections.
The discussion in the court on Wednesday focuses on whether the SIR Framework incorporates the remaining within the limits of the law, and whether the ECI has a legal place for tailor processes for a special amendment separate from a simple summary practice.
TMC legalist Mahua Motra and senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who represented some others, argued that the list was not really inclusive as most of the 11 documents had very few coverage in Bihar.
“Aadhaar is a document with the highest coverage in the last 15 years-50-60%, perhaps more. More. Water, electricity, gas bills are excluded. Indian passport coverage is less than 1-2%. All other documents have 0-3%coverage. If you do not have land, three of them are not present in beer.
On Aadhaar’s non-acceptance, Singhvi stated that its boycott would affect real voters inconsistently. For this, the bench replied that those who excluded those who would have contacted the High Court, unlike Assam where there are tribunals of foreigners. The court urged not to negatively do “Bihar”, keeping in mind the strong representation of the state in national services.
Senior Advocate Gopal Shankaranarayan, who was present for the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), said that in the Sir Enumeration Form “there was no basis in the law” and alleged that 65 million voters were removed “like this” without any procedure. He argued that the removal of voters required amendment of the Representation of the People’s Act (RPA), not issued administrative instructions.
Asking to be on exercise, he said: “You cannot take me away from the electoral roll by just giving a cut-off date. In the establishment, it is dead.” However, the court stated that the voter list “cannot be stable” and periodic amendments were necessary.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, who represents ADR, alleged that booth-level officials had sometimes filled the automatic interaction forms, sometimes for the deceased persons, sometimes for the deceased persons. He also questioned how such a large number of people can be noticed and their cases have been fixed within a month, it is called the “fet companion” that will give the role an arbitrary final form.
Bhushan reiterated his claim that ECI removed the searching draft roll from his website after a press conference by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on “fake voters”. But the bench said that he had no “knowledge” of any press conference.
On the publishing requirements, the court clarified that the legal standard was defined under Rule 10 of registration of electoral rules, welcoming online disclosure, 1961.
Senior Advocate Shadan Farit, who was present for one of the petitioners, argued that the SIR process itself was illegal and unprecedented. He said, “Draft is to include rolls. If it is to be removed, they have no support. It is illegal to evict these 65 million people,” he said.
During the hearing, the court noticed that Section 21 (3) of the Representation of the People’s Act, 1950, to conduct a special amendment “ECI latitude” could be thought in this way, “especially in exceptional circumstances, while the default regime is explained, to explain whether it is” a elbow as “the plan.
The court will continue the hearing of the case on Thursday.
The ECI has defended its decision, demanding dismissal of petitions against SIR, citing demographic changes, urban migrations, and removal of untouchability from the roll, which has not gone through intensive modification for almost two decades. It says that it has plans powers under Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 21 (3) of the Representation of the People’s Act, 1950, which takes the head out.
In its latest affidavit filed on 9 August, the Commission insisted that the rules of 1950 Act and 1960 are not required to prepare or publish a separate list of about 65 lakh persons who were not included in the draft role, or to tell the reasons for each non-conscience. This clarified that the exclusion from the draft did not have the amount to delete from the electoral roll and assured the court that no name would be removed without prior notice, the opportunity to hear, and a logical order by the competent authority.
The petitions of the ADR and others challenge the ECI’s 24 June notification under Section 21 (3) of the 1950 Act. The petitioners argue that only 11 specified documents, such as birth or matriculation certificate, passport, dominance certificate, etc. demand the ECI, as there is a lack of statutory basis in evidence of citizenship. They further claim that this restrictive documentation requirement may be different from large numbers of legitimate voters, especially marginalized communities. He has also questioned whether the ECI has the right to conduct such amendments to verify citizenship, arguing that the work rests with the Central Government.
SIR has become a major political flashpoint before the Bihar assembly elections scheduled later this year. Opposition parties in India block have staged a protest in Parliament and wrote to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla that they demand a special discussion that they call “unprecedented” amendments, which are close to the state elections. Eight parties including Congress, RJD, Samajwadi Party, DMK, Trinmool Congress and Shiv Sena (UBT) have warned that the exercise can be repeated nationwide.
On August 8, Union Home Minister Amit Shah, while addressing a rally in Sitamari in Bihar, launched a sharp attack on opposition leader Rahul Gandhi and the Bharat Block, opposing them of opposing the amendment as the “names of the intruders” were being removed from the list. Shah said, “The intruders have no right to vote. The names of the intruders should be removed from the lists of voters.
While the government has alleged opposing the politicization of electoral reforms, the opposition says that the time, functioning and documentation requirements threatens the fundamental right of real voters to vote, especially among the poor, migrants and minorities.
