The Supreme Court on Thursday scheduled for hearing on November 4 a batch of petitions challenging the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) decision to conduct a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar.
As the petitioner informed the court that the ECI should separately publish the lists of deleted and newly added voters, the Supreme Court observed that the poll panel was aware of its responsibility to disclose voter data upon completion of the recently concluded SIR.
Earlier, the Supreme Court had directed the Bihar State Legal Services Authority (BSLSA) to issue instructions to its district-level bodies to assist voters excluded from the final electoral rolls following the Bihar Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in filing appeals with the ECI.
To ensure free legal aid for those excluded from the final voters’ list, the bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi instructed the BSLSA to communicate with the District Legal Services Authorities to ensure the presence of paralegal volunteers and legal aid counsels who can assist affected individuals in filing appeals.
The bench issued the order after noting discrepancies in affidavits submitted before the court by certain individuals who claimed they had been wrongly excluded.
Also Read : Maharashtra SEC urges ECI to defer SIR
Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing the ECI, contested the accuracy of the affidavit submitted by one individual.
Dwivedi cited an instance raised by the petitioner, the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), regarding a person whose name was allegedly deleted from the final list despite being included in the draft list.
He refuted the claim, stating that the individual was not part of the draft list as he had failed to submit the enumeration form, and added that filing such a false affidavit amounted to perjury.
Dwivedi further noted that excluded individuals could still file appeals, as a five-day window remained open for them to do so.
Expressing displeasure, the bench told advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing ADR, that greater responsibility should have been exercised when presenting documents before the court.
The apex court also heard arguments from political activist Yogendra Yadav.
Follow us
