Supreme Court Questions Election Commission on Special Intensive Revision of Voter List in Bihar. Petitioners Allege Arbitrary and Discriminatory Process. Court States - This Should Not Happen Just Before Elections.
Bihar Voter List: The Supreme Court heard a case regarding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the voter list in Bihar ahead of the assembly elections. The petitioners claimed the process was biased and violated the rules. The court clarified to the Election Commission that the timing of the process was inappropriate and could raise questions about electoral fairness.
Petitioners Raise Serious Questions
Opposition parties have approached the Supreme Court against the special intensive revision campaign of the voter list in Bihar. On Thursday, a bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalyo Bagchi heard the matter. Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan appeared on behalf of the petitioners. He stated that this special revision was being carried out disregarding the rules and that the entire process was discriminatory.
He informed the court that citizens who registered their names in the voter list after January 1, 2003, were being asked for documents, while citizens before that date only had to fill out a form. This process is unequal and biased.
"Prove that the Election Commission is Wrong"
The court told the petitioners to prove that this action of the Election Commission was against the rules. Justice Dhulia clarified that the commission has the right to revise the voter list. He said that the petitioners cannot claim that the commission does not have the authority to carry out this process. However, they can certainly challenge how the commission is carrying out this process.
Gopal Sankaranarayanan argued that the Election Commission had made 11 types of documents mandatory in this process, which is completely arbitrary and biased. He said that the annual review of the voter list had already been done, so there was no need for a special revision again.
Four Major Objections
The petitioners presented four main grounds to the court, stating that the SIR process was incorrect. They argued that it:
- Violates the rules.
- Is discriminatory.
- Is unilateral and arbitrary.
- Is based on misinterpretation of the law's provisions.
What the Election Commission Said
Senior advocate and former Attorney General K. K. Venugopal presented the Election Commission's side. He stated that the commission had initiated this process under the rules. The commission argued that it was necessary to request documents to bring transparency to the voter list since the computerization in 2003.
Justice Dhulia called this argument of the commission 'practical,' but also said that even if the process is within the law, questions can be raised about its timing.
"Should Not Happen Just Before Elections"
During the hearing, the Supreme Court made a special comment on the fact that this process should not happen just before the elections. The court said that if the goal is to verify citizenship, then this is the subject of the Ministry of Home Affairs. The commission should not start such a large process just before the elections.
Refusal to Consider Aadhaar Card as Identity Proof
The Election Commission also clarified that Aadhaar card alone cannot be considered as proof of identity. The Supreme Court questioned this and said that if you want to include a person in the voter list only on the basis of citizenship, then this work will be beyond your limit. The court also asked why this process was not started earlier if it was so necessary.
