New Delhi: Now that the Bihar Special Intensive Revision (SIR) has concluded, the Supreme Court has asked the Election Commission of India (ECI) to clarify whether Bihar’s final voters’ list includes entirely new voters—absent from the draft rolls—or reinstates names that were earlier removed but later restored after voters provided identification.
On Tuesday, a bench of justices Suryakant and Joymalya Bagchi asked the ECI to clear the ‘confusion’ over the identity of the voters on the final electoral rolls. Petitioners against the Bihar SIR earlier raised concerns, demanding a list of the names of 3.66 lakh additional voters removed, as well as the 21 lakh new voters added, to make the final voters’ list.
“Final list appears to be an appreciation of numbers…There is confusion in the general democratic process about what the identity of the add-ons is. Is it an add-on of deleted names, or is it an add-on of independent new names?” asked Justice Bagchi, while accepting that the final list could have new names.
In response, ECI counsel and senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi clarified that most of the additions were new voters. The bench, however, wanted more inputs. “This exercise (SIR) is in aid of the electoral process that you have started, so that the confidence in the electoral process is fortified,” it said, in a reminder to the ECI.
The bench also asked the petitioners to file affidavits if any names had been wrongly removed or added in the final voters’ list. Assuring that the court would not allow the deletion of eligible voters, Justice Kant said that the bench would pass orders if any affected persons approached the court.
“If anyone can give the list of voters—out of these 3.66 lakh—who have not received orders…we will direct EC to give them orders…everyone has the right to appeal,” Justice Kant stated in court.
At the same time, the bench warned the ECI against entering into a roving enquiry. It said that it would direct the publication of the deleted and newly added names, only when prima facie satisfied that there had been a violation.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, who appeared for a voter-petitioner, alleged there had been exclusion of voter names en masse and that he could bring “hundreds” of such cases before the court.
Responding to Justice Kant’s assurances, he said, “I can bring 100…how many, your lordships, want? I have already given an illustration.” He also handed over an affidavit of a person whose name, he claimed, was wrongfully deleted from the final voters’ list.
Bhushan demanded publication of the fresh deletions and additions.
The court, however, said that it would issue such a direction only if it was—prima facie—shown that the deletions or inclusions were unjustified.
When the bench sought to know why the deleted voters could not just file appeals, senior advocate A.M. Singhvi, who appeared for another voter-petitioner, submitted that unless those who were no longer on the voters’ list were informed about the same, it was not possible for them to file an appeal before the court.
“Persons—who are deleted—do not get notice that they are deleted. They do not get the reasons. There is no question of appeal because no one knows. The least they can do is inform,” Singhvi said.
Dwivedi contested Singhvi, saying the deleted persons have got the information.
While directing the ECI to mandatorily share the necessary information, the court scheduled 9 October as the next date of hearing.
Bhushan claimed a disproportionate exclusion of women, Muslims, etc., in the Bihar SIR and that instead of cleaning up the voters’ list, the process has “compounded the problems”.
(Edited by Madhurita Goswami)
Also Read: SC lawyer admits he ‘hurled’ shoe at CJI; was let go after brief police detention