New Delhi: The Election Commission of India (ECI) Thursday charged the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and activist Yogendra Yadav with relying on a name-recognition software to raise “baseless” claims of religious bias against the ECI in court. Meanwhile, it denied the targeted removal of Muslims from Bihar’s electoral rolls during the special intensive revision.
The ADR and activist Yogendra Yadav had filed petitions challenging the ECI’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in the Supreme Court, alleging that a significant number of voters, particularly Muslims, were illegally removed from the rolls and that the process lacked transparency.
The ECI said ADR’s assertion is communal and its approach in the case must be “deprecated.” The poll panel spelt out its stand in an affidavit given to the court Thursday.
The ECI emphasised that its electoral rolls’ database does not record or capture any information about a voter’s religion. So, according to the ECI, the allegation of religious bias in the list’s preparation, deletion, or inclusion is “unfounded”.
The ECI affidavit submitted, “This [allegation] is based on some software for name recognition, whose authenticity, accuracy, or appropriateness cannot be commented upon.”
It further submitted via the affidavit that the ECI official website published the names of the 65 lakh voters excluded from the draft voters’ list in line with relevant SC orders. Most of those not included did not file any application with objection or correction, it added.
The election commission rebutted ADR’s analysis, picking out what it called “serious flaws” in the organisation’s data research. It said that the 65 lakh names not included in the draft voters’ list were those who had not submitted enumeration forms with the ECI.
Also Read: CEC Gyanesh Kumar isn’t interested in convincing the people of India
House-to-house survey vs forged forms
Its house-to-house survey, the ECI claimed, showed that out of the 65 lakh individuals, 22 lakh had passed away, 36 lakh had permanently moved to another state, and seven lakh had enrolled at multiple places.
The petitioners had alleged that booth-level officers submitted the enumeration forms, without any surveys, forged signatures, and enrolled deceased individuals—claims that the ECI termed as false and misleading.
The final electoral rolls—published on 30 September—showed 7.42 crore electors will cast their vote in the forthcoming Bihar elections. Currently, the ECI is checking objections and claims submitted after the 1 September publication of the draft voters’ list.
Moreover, in its objection to the ADR’s contention of religious exclusion, the ECI said, “The entire game plan of the petitioner from the very beginning has been to derail and obstruct the conduct of the SIR exercise in Bihar and across India.”
During the hearing of the SIR case, the petitioners had urged the bench—led by Justice Suryakant—to direct the ECI to publish the names, either added or deleted, from the original electoral rolls.
After recording the ECI’s submission that it was in the process of publishing that list, the court said, “We have no doubts that they will fulfil their responsibility…They are bound to publish…We are not closing the matter.”
The ECI accused the ADR of deceiving individuals into giving depositions before the court through affidavits, claiming exclusion of names from the final electors’ list.
It pointed to 20 such affidavits shared with the court. Of them, the ECI contended that “some of the individuals already feature in the final roll,” while other applications are in process.
Also Read: What welfare scheme ghosts, fakes and deads teach us about EC voter list row
Meticulous exercise vs impractical timeline
The ECI also extensively detailed what it called a “meticulous exercise” carried out at multiple verification stages during the SIR. It pointed out that it involved over 90,000 booth-level officers (BLOs) and booth-level agents (BLAs) appointed by political parties.
The ECI also flagged limited cooperation from political parties, which, it said, filed only 25 claims for inclusion and 119 objections after the publication of the draft voters list.
The petitioners had alleged that the ECI provided an “impractical timeline” for the SIR in Bihar, pointing out how the shorter period contrasts with a far longer one for a similar revision from earlier in 2003, placing an unreasonable burden on voters.
After the publication of the draft voters’ list, the number of individuals who approached the commission against exclusion and requested inclusion was significantly larger than the voters whom the political parties found excluded, according to the ECI.
After processing all claims and objections, the ECI added 21.53 lakh new electors to the draft rolls, it said, adding so far no appeals against the exclusions from the final electoral rolls have been received.
According to the commission, all 3.66 lakh voters deleted from the final rolls were issued notices from the electoral registration officers (ERO/AERO) and were allowed an opportunity to voice their disagreements. After speaking orders in each case, the affected individuals, the ECI said, received a copy of the order.
(Edited by Madhurita Goswami)