New Delhi: Taking note of the Election Commission of India’s (ECI’s) submission that voters are to be duly intimated before deleting their names from the electoral rolls, the Supreme Court (SC) Friday disposed of a petition challenging the constitutional validity of a provision which allows deletion of eligible voters without notice or opportunity to be heard by the affected citizen.
A bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and S.V.N. Bhatti noted that the ECI had issued a letter in December 2013 to prevent wrongful deletion of entries from electoral rolls.
This letter, seen by ThePrint, was sent by the ECI to the chief electoral officers of all states and Union territories, giving them instructions for “preparation of error free electoral rolls”. The letter said that “no deletion should be done without following due process of law…in all cases, a notice must be issued to the elector and must be duly served on him”.
This letter was a part of the response filed in the apex court by the ECI in January this year. In the response, the ECI also highlighted other statutory provisions and safeguards against wrongful deletions of voters from electoral rolls.
The order was passed on a petition filed by three former bureaucrats — M.G. Devasahayam, Somasundar Burra, and Aditi Mehta — demanding, among other things, that Rule 18 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, be declared unconstitutional, “as it allows for deletion of voter data without notice or an opportunity to be heard by the affected citizen”.
Rule 18 allows the electoral registration officer (ERO) to accept objections to any name in the electoral roll without inquiry if he’s “satisfied as to the validity of the claim or objection”. The ERO can do this a week after he exhibits the list of objections received by him on a notice board in his office. Accepting objections to any name in the electoral roll would essentially lead to deletion of the name from the roll.
The 1960 rules talk about the deletion of names from the rolls. Such a deletion can be done on several grounds, including removing names of dead people or those who do not reside in that constituency anymore.
While the court did not declare Rule 18 unconstitutional, advocate Sarim Naved, advocate for the petitioners told ThePrint, “In terms of the Supreme Court order, in which, the election commission’s 2013 letter has been approved and given the imprimatur (approval) of the court, it is clear that notice has to be issued in all cases where a person’s name has to be deleted from the electoral roll.”
Also read: ‘Diversity deficit’ — House panel calls for more inclusivity in higher judiciary to bolster trust
‘Approached SECs for specific lapses’
While quoting the letter, the ECI’s January response had also said, “name of a voter is not deleted from the electoral roll, without prior intimation or notice to him by the concerned Electoral Registration Officer.”
In its order, the Supreme Court asserted that Rule 18 has to be read along with 1960 Rules numbers 16 (registration officer to exhibit copies of list of objections on a notice board), 17 (rejection of claims and objections not lodged within the specific period or in the form and manner provided), 19 (notice of hearing claims and objections), 20 (inquiry into claims and objections), 21 (inclusion of names inadvertently omitted), 21A (deletion of names) and 22 (final publication of roll).
It then observed, “In fact, the Election Commission of India has also issued letter no. 23/1/2013-ERS dated 11.12.2013 in this regard to prevent wrongful deletion of entries from the electoral rolls.”
The court, therefore, disposed of the writ petition, while observing that “in case there are individual or specific lapses, it would be open to the parties, including the petitioners, to approach the State Election Commission or the concerned Election Officer”.
“In case any such grievance is not redressed, the parties may take recourse to appropriate remedy in accordance with law,” the court added.
The petition
The petition before the Supreme Court had asserted that the Registration of Electors Rules 1960, and in particular rule 13(2), read with rules 18 and 20 “clearly illustrates the ease with which authentic voter data can be maliciously deleted and, thus, manipulated”.
Rule 13(2) talks about objections to inclusion of a name in the electoral roll. Rule 20 says that the registration officer shall hold a summary inquiry into every claim or objection. However, it leaves it to the discretion of the registration officer to allow any claimant, objector or person objected to, to appear in person before him.
It also cited Rule 21 which talks about “inclusion of names inadvertently omitted”. It says that if the registration officer notices that names of any electors have been left out of roll due to an inadvertent error during preparation, he can prepare a list of the details of such electors, exhibit a copy of the list on the notice board of his office along with a notice as to the time and place at which the inclusion of these names in the roll will be considered, and then decide whether all or any of the names should be included in the roll.
The petition asserted that this power allows the registration officer to “rectify such errors without any provision for the affected parties to be notified or heard.”
The petition then alleged, “The systems and procedures presently in place enable voter data deletion and manipulation without so much as a Notice to the citizen whose name is being struck off the electoral roll or even allowing him an opportunity to be heard.”
“If certain populations are excluded from electoral rolls because of their social and economic disadvantage, it amounts to their disenfranchisement and the denial to them of their most fundamental right in a democracy, namely to cast their vote during general, state, municipal and panchayat elections,” the petition asserted.
The petition therefore urged the court to look into the “urgent and immediate directions regarding use of Common Electoral Rolls at elections conducted by the Election Commission and the State Election Commissions”.
It also demanded that Rule 18 be declared unconstitutional, asserting, “it is violative of Article 14 (equality) read with Articles 19 (freedom of speech and expression) and 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution of India and is unconstitutional in so far as it allows for deletion of voter data without notice or an opportunity to be heard by the affected citizen.”
(Edited by Zinnia Ray Chaudhuri)
Also read: Police register ‘abetment of suicide’ FIR in art director Nitin Desai death case. What this means