New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday, January 29, reserved its verdict on a batch of pleas, including the one filed by NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar.
The top court is examining the pleas that claimed that the poll panel does not have powers under Article 326 of the Constitution, the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Rules made under it to carry out the SIR on such a larger form.
The SIR in Bihar was conducted in the first phase. The second phase of the electoral roll revision is being carried out across nine states, namely Chhattisgarh, Goa, Gujarat, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal and three UTs, Andaman and Nicobar, Lakshadweep and Puducherry. A separate ‘special revision’ of electoral rolls is in progress in Assam.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi concluded the final hearing after a battery of lawyers including Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Singhvi, Prashant Bhushan and Gopal Sankaranarayan argued in the matter.
The poll panel was represented by senior advocates Rakesh Dwivedi and Maninder Singh.
The bench heard rejoinder submissions on behalf of the petitioners before reserving the verdict.
The court had commenced final arguments in the matter on August 12 last year, when it observed that inclusion or exclusion of names in electoral rolls falls within the constitutional remit of the Election Commission of India (ECI).
The poll panel came out with the names of 65 lakh people who were removed from the draft electoral rolls published as part of the SIR exercise.
According to the SIR notification, voters who were not present in the 2002 or 2003 rolls have to show ancestral linkage with someone present in the rolls then. Eleven documents were specified by the poll panel as documents which could be used to verify identity.
The ECI has defended the SIR exercise, maintaining that Aadhaar and voter identity cards cannot be treated as conclusive proof of citizenship.
It was alleged by the petitioners that the electoral rolls revision was an ‘NRC-like process’ where the poll panel was verifying citizenship, a power which vests in the central government. Earlier, the bench said that additions and deletions are part of the electoral roll revision exercise undertaken by the EC.
On the admissibility of the Aadhaar card as one of the proofs, the top court categorically said that the possibility of forgery cannot be a ground to reject the 12-digit biometric identifier.
Observing that even passports are processed through private agencies performing public duties, it said, “If a document is recognised by statute, it cannot be discarded merely because a private entity is involved in its issuance.”
Singhvi, appearing for one of the petitioners, accused the EC of “presumptive exclusion” of five crore people in the SIR. The court had indicated that if anything suspicious was found in making them invalid, it could give a direction to include all of them in the electoral rolls.
“The law of granting or taking away citizenship has to be passed by Parliament but the inclusion and exclusion of citizens and non-citizens from the electoral rolls is within the remit of the Election Commission,” the bench had told Singhvi.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for ADR, questioned the timeline for the completion of the exercise and the data of 65 lakh voters who were declared dead or migrated or registered in other constituencies.
Political activist Yogendra Yadav questioned the data given by the poll panel and said there was a total adult population of 8.18 crore instead of 7.9 crore voters and the design of the SIR exercise was actually to delete voters.
The EC affidavit justified its SIR in Bihar, saying it adds to the purity of the election by “weeding out ineligible persons” from the electoral rolls.
Follow on Twitter | Posted by Veena Nair | 
