|
The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the Election Commission of India (ECI) over the basis on which persons are being issued notices under the logical discrepancies category during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Delhi and sought the poll panels response to a batch of pleas challenging the exercise.
The Court also directed the ECI to file a status report on the steps taken and asked it to follow its interim directions issued in the Bihar and West Bengal SIR matters. A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana was hearing pleas challenging the manner in which the Delhi SIR is being conducted, including the issuance of notices to voters without disclosing the specific reason or material on which the objection is based. The petitioners have questioned the failure of the ECI and the Delhi Chief Electoral Officer to disclose the names of voters who have received such notices and the precise grounds for issuing them. They have also questioned the basis for placing voters in the category of logical discrepancy and sought clarity on the information they are expected to provide to answer such objections. As per the petitioners, the draft electoral roll in Delhi excluded around 47 lakh names, while notices were issued to around 33 lakh other voters whose names remained in the draft roll. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioners, told the Court that the problem was not merely the number of notices but the lack of clarity about what voters were being asked to establish. He said voters receiving notices were being asked to appear with documents even when the notice did not provide enough information to understand the discrepancy attributed to them. Bhushan gave the example of a notice based on an alleged age discrepancy between a voter and the voters parents. He questioned how a voter could explain such a discrepancy when the documents listed by the ECI may not contain information about the parents. Bhushan also argued that many ordinary voters may have limited documentary records and said Aadhaar was often the principal document available to them containing their basic details. He questioned why a voter who had submitted an enumeration form and produced proof of age and residence should be required to establish additional facts. Bhushan also informed the Court that the exercise had affected a large number of voters and referred to the deletion of around 47 lakh names from the draft roll. He said a substantial number of voters had been categorised as having shifted and questioned the process through which such voters were being required to establish their status. The Court specifically questioned the manner in which the ECI was generating and communicating the notices. Justice Bagchi asked the Commission to examine whether notices were being issued mechanically and whether voters were being adequately informed about the reason for the notice. The CJI also asked the ECI to clarify the meaning and operation of the logical discrepancy category. You need to clarify logical discrepancy a little, the CJI remarked. Senior Advocate D S Naidu, appearing for the ECI, submitted that every notice contained a reason and said the issue was not as serious as suggested by the petitioners. The ECI also informed the Court that the 12 documents referred to in the verification process were not exhaustive. The Court then inquired whether the Commission had sufficient officials to assist voters responding to the notices. Justice Bagchi asked how many Booth Level Officers (BLOs) had been deployed after noting that around 30 lakh notices had been issued. Naidu said the ECI had deployed 14,000 BLOs and 1,200 Electoral Registration Officers. He said October 29 was the deadline and that the Commission was open to extending it if the exercise was not completed. The ECI also assured the Court that not even a single voter would be deleted without following the prescribed process. The CJI said the BLOs should be able to assist voters in responding to the notices and suggested that officials could be made available at ward offices so that voters could approach them directly. The ECI said it had already organised camps and created WhatsApp groups for assistance. The Court also considered the practical difficulties faced by voters in responding to the notices. Justice Bagchi suggested that the ECI could prepare standard responses dealing with common categories of objections so that officials could provide uniform information to voters. Bhushan also pointed out that notices had been issued to retired judges and others, indicating that the issue was affecting people across categories. The Court directed the ECI to place on record a status report setting out the steps taken in response to the concerns raised before the Court. (ANI)
|
