The Supreme Court disagreed with the claim that the Election Commission's document-checking process is 'anti-voter' and exclusionary during a hearing on petitions related to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter lists in Bihar.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Singhvi made the argument in front of a bench that included Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Surya Kant. The bench observed that the Special Intensive Revision now requires eleven eligible documents, compared to seven for a summary revision of voter lists.
Justice Bagchi remarked, "We get your exclusionary argument from Aadhaar. But the point on the number of documents is, in fact, voter-friendly and not against it. Look at the number of documents by which you can prove citizenship."
Justice Kant echoed this view, stating, "If they ask for all 11 documents, it is anti-voter. But if any one document is asked for, then..."
Singhvi, however, maintained that the requirement is 'exclusionary.' He argued, "I will show how. An exclusionary test is sought here. See what is asked for... if you don't have land... options 5, 6, 7 are out. Option 1 and 2 do not exist. Residence certificates are not there. Passport is illusory."
Intervening, Justice Kant urged, "Let us not project Bihar this way." He highlighted Bihar's significant representation in All India Services, noting, "In terms of All India services, maximum representation is from this state. The maximum IAS, IPS, IFS (officers) are from there. This cannot happen if the younger population is not motivated."
Also Read: Over 6.6 cr Bihar voters file forms before SIR deadline
Singhvi responded by acknowledging Bihar's talented individuals but asserted that this was limited to a specific section of the population. He pointed out, "Bihar has rural, flood-prone areas. There are poverty-stricken areas. What is the point of making a list of 11 documents for them? The issue is that most people in Bihar will not have these documents. We are talking about real, authentic scrutiny."
Citing passports as an example, Singhvi stated that only 1-2 pC of Bihar's population, approximately 36 lakh people, possess one. The bench countered that a coverage of 36 lakh passports was 'good.'
Singhvi further contended that the list of 11 documents was misleading. "You have given 11 documents and three of these 11 documents, the three boxes are empty without notice. The other two are doubtful. So this impressive list of 11 is nothing but a house of cards. It is not overlapping but supplantation," he argued.
Also Read: Aadhaar, EPIC, ration cards not voter proof: EC to Supreme Court
He asserted that the procedure was requiring citizens to provide proof of citizenship, which went against the Lal Babu ruling from 1995. According to the Lal Babu ruling, a voter's rights must be respected, any attempt to remove their name from the voter list must be supported by sufficient evidence, and the voter must be given a chance to argue their position.
Singhvi clarified that they were not challenging the Election Commission's rules for deleting names from voter lists. He stated, "There is a detailed list of rules that need to be followed for the deletion of voters. This is against the principle of natural justice."
Additionally, the petitioner Association for Democratic Reforms was represented by Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan. He maintained that "once included in the voter list, the voter has a statutory right to be on the list" and that the right to appear on the electoral roll is a "sacrosanct one."
Also Read: Supreme Court backs EC on Aadhar
Follow us
