The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) ordered by the Election Commission of India (ECI) across different states has raised concerns of an indirect National Register of Citizens (NRC) process without the approval of Parliament, petitioners told the Supreme Court on Tuesday.
The submission was made by Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi before a Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi during the hearing of pleas challenging the legal validity of the SIR exercise across states.
Singhvi argued that the ECI has no power under Article 324 of Constitution of India to conduct a citizenship test by introducing arbitrary procedures in the guidelines for elections. The senior counsel said that the ECI had effectively created a parallel mechanism of citizenship determination through the electoral process.
Singhvi further said that the ECI was presumptively putting people on a "temporary citizenship list.""That is my language, but it captures the effect. The original list becomes a presumptive temporary list. Second, I have to prove that I am a citizen. The burden is reversed. They file an objection against me and I am forced into an adjudication. This is very serious. The Election Commission has arrogated to itself a power it does not have. It has created a presumption. It has shifted the burden," he said.
The Court has been hearing a batch of petitions filed by opposition leaders and NGOs challenging the conduct of SIR of electoral rolls in various states. During the hearing today, Singhvi submitted that the ECI was required to provide constituency-wise reasons for ordering such exercise. He submitted that extraordinary circumstances can arise and that the Court was not inhibited in any manner.
Advocate Vrinda Grover, also appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the declaration form for the process is designed to exclude voters.
Grover contended that the SIR was an attempt by ECI to arrogate itself powers which were not contemplated in law, adding that the electoral body was entering into the legislative domain.Advocate Prashant Bhushan, who also appears on the petitioners' side, submitted that the present SIR was completely different from the 2002 SIR."Today it is a de novo preparation. Why is this hurry? Why is it leading to a situation where 30 BLOs have committed suicide?" he asked.Bhushan also referred to the alleged public perception about ECI.
"We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that a lot of people are viewing the Election Commission as a despot."However, CJI Kant advised against such submissions."Let us not make sweeping statements which are not there in pleadings."Continuing with his submissions, Bhushan said that online publication Reporters Collective had published a report stating that more than five lakh duplicate voters still exist after the SIR in Bihar.The hearing will resume on December 4.
Follow us
