|
RJD MP Manoj Kumar Jha on Wednesday expressed disappointment over the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls conducted by the Election Commission of India (ECI) in Bihar last year, stating that the opposition was questioning the "exclusion instead of inclusion" process.
Petitioner and advocate Ashwini Upadhyay said the court had rejected the allegations raised in over 20 PILs filed by opposition parties challenging the revision process and questioning the impartiality of the ECI Speaking to ANI, Jha rejected claims that opposition parties had challenged the Election Commission's authority, clarifying that their objections were limited to the process of SIR. He said the opposition had high expectations from the apex court and would wait for the detailed judgment. "What can I say? We had hopes with the Supreme Court. What were we concerned about? We were questioning the 'exclusion, instead of inclusion' process. We did not challenge the rights of the Election Commission. We will see the detailed judgment. There is nothing more to say," he said. On the other hand, Uttar Pradesh Minister Om Prakash Rajbhar welcomed the Supreme Court's decision and criticised the opposition for allegedly making "absurd comments" and opposing the Constitutionally conducted processes. "We welcome the Supreme Court judgment. EC is an independent body; it has the right to conduct SIR. The Supreme Court has put its stamp of approval on this. Opposition makes absurd comments and opposes even things which are done as per the Constitution," he said. This comes after the Supreme Court upheld the Election Commission of India's (ECI) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, which was first undertaken in Bihar, holding that the exercise is constitutional, legally tenable and cannot be struck down merely because it differs from the ordinary process of voter-roll revision. A bench of Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi held that the SIR exercise cannot be declared 'ultra vires' solely on the ground that it adopts a process distinct from the routine revision of electoral rolls contemplated under the statutory framework. Terming the exercise a "legitimate and constitutional" one, the Court observed that "the exercise is legally tenable" and is aimed at restoring the accuracy and purity of electoral rolls. The Court further clarified that the ECI's powers in the process remain limited to determining eligibility for inclusion in electoral rolls and do not extend to ascertaining citizenship status. It held that the deletion of a person's name from the voter list does not divest that individual of citizenship, since citizenship can only be determined by the competent authority under law. (ANI)
|
