Bihar SIR row: 'Not bound by rules' to disclose voters excluded from draft roll, ECI tells SC
The apex court's two-judge bench, headed by Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymala Bagchi, is scheduled to hear on August 12, Tuesday, a batch of pleas challenging the constitutional validity of Bihar SIR.
This was the third affidavit filed by the Commission in response to a notice to the Supreme Court on an application filed by NGO, Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), claiming 65 lakh voters in Bihar during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls have been left without disclosing reasons.
"It is not required under the Rules to furnish the reasons for the non-inclusion of persons in the draft Roll. It has shared the draft roll with the political parties," the ECI in its fresh affidavit told the apex court.
The persons not included in the draft have the option of submitting a declaration for inclusion.
Pleading to the SC for dismissing the batch of pleas in Bihar SIR issue, the ECI clarified that such electors would be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard and furnishing of relevant documents.
"As a matter of policy and in strict adherence to the principles of natural justice, no deletion of any elector's name from the draft electoral roll of Bihar published on August 1, 2025, as part of the Special Intensive Revision, would be undertaken without issuance of a prior notice and passing of a reasoned and speaking order by the competent authorit," the ECI told the apex court.
Dismissing the allegations, the EC, in an additional affidavit filed on Saturday, said, the safeguards against deletion have been reinforced by a robust two-tier appeal mechanism prescribed under the relevant rules, thereby ensuring that every elector has adequate recourse against any adverse action.
"The petitioners in the Bihar SIR case are attempting to mislead the court. The petitioners have come to court with unclean hands and deserve heavy costs to be imposed upon them," the ECI said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
21 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Four-day Uttar Pradesh legislature session to run till August 14
The Monsoon Session of the Uttar Pradesh legislature will commence on Monday (August 11, 2025), with Assembly Speaker Satish Mahana chairing an all-party meeting on Sunday (August 10, 2025) to seek the cooperation of all political parties. Both Houses — the Vidhan Sabha and the Vidhan Parishad — will sit for four days, till August 14, with some key Bills expected to be tabled. 'We requested for the cooperation of leaders from all the parties during the Assembly session,' Mr. Mahana said. Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath visited the Vidhan Sabha premises, where he inaugurated the renovated dome at the entrance of the Vidhan Bhavan, Assembly Room No. 15, and the VVIP dining hall. He also participated in the all-party meeting ahead of the session. The Samajwadi Party (SP), the principal Opposition, said it would raise issues such as the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in the context of the Bihar polls, the merger of government schools, law and order, and floods. 'We will raise key issues like the SIR, school merger which are fundamental to the survival of democracy and the future of our country,' SP spokesperson Ameeque Jamei said. The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) said any attempt to portray the SIR as politically motivated was 'misleading and baseless'. 'The Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar is a routine, transparent, and constitutionally mandated exercise carried out under the direct supervision of the Election Commission of India. Its objective is simple - to ensure that every eligible voter's name is included, errors are corrected, and duplicate or ineligible entries are removed. This process strengthens democracy and empowers citizens, especially first-time voters. Any attempt to portray this as politically motivated is baseless and misleading,' said Pushkar Mishra, a senior BJP functionary based in Uttar Pradesh.
Indian Express
21 minutes ago
- Indian Express
‘Investigation in the train blast case is a sad comment on how little policing has changed since 1872'
There were two recent judgments in terror cases–the 2006 Mumbai train blasts and the 2008 Malegaon blasts judgments. The high court verdict acquitting 12 people for the train blasts (7/11) called the torture meted out to them as 'barbaric' and 'inhuman'–the use of the judgment as a precedent in cases of MCOCA was stayed by the Supreme Court while not interfering with the high court's findings on the men's innocence. The trial court in the Malegaon case said there was a strong suspicion, but no legal proof against the seven accused it acquitted, citing reasons including the lack of procedure followed by the prosecution. Sadaf Modak speaks with advocates Yug Chaudhry and Payoshi Roy, who represented the accused in the train blasts case, about procedures and safeguards in terror probes. While drafting the Indian Evidence Act, James Fitzjames Stephen had decreed confessions to police officers as inadmissible. This holds equally true today and even the new criminal laws bar the use of confessions and witness statements made before police officers. The investigation in the train blast case is a sad comment on how little policing has changed since 1872, despite the upgrade in resources and technique. In this case, torture was the investigative tool of choice whether it be by obtaining false confessions, or coerced signatures on make-believe recovery /seizure panchnamas concocted in the police station. Superior officers endorsed the use of torture, and often threatened the prisoners with it if they did not cooperate or if they complained to the judges. Remand judges and later the trial judge pretended that there were no signs of torture even when it was staring them in the face. It appears that investigating officers resorting to such fabrication are enabled by the judicial latitude they are assured of receiving in terror cases. The failure therefore is not one of technique or manner of probe but a crisis of impunity. The burden lies not only on courts but also on the State to strictly monitor these investigations and pull up erring officers. This is a case where the High Court has found that the police have tortured the accused to procure confessions and destroyed evidence of CDR that would exonerate the accused. Instead of immediately instituting a wide-ranging review of this botched investigation, the state has denied its falsity. This attitude is a disservice to the victims who deserve an honest investigation, like the high court itself observed, that there is no greater betrayal of victims of terror crimes than fabricated investigations. This judgment should serve as a clarion call to the political leadership that short-cuts in terror investigations are unacceptable. At present, sanction and prior approval for MCOCA (Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act) prosecution are given by an officer of the DIG Rank. When a terror offence of this magnitude is committed, officers at the highest level supervise the investigation. Seeking sanction from the DIG or the DGP of the state, who has been actively monitoring the investigation, is like an appeal from Ceaser to Ceaser's wife. In the 7/11 case, the approval for Act was granted without looking at the chargesheets, which allows DCPs to record confessions. One of the reasons the high court rejected the confessions is because prior approval was given without application of mind. Even under UAPA, sanction is sought from an authority appointed by the Central or state government. These safeguards have been reduced to a nullity. The authority granting sanction must be independent and quasi-judicial and must be able to scrutinise the material independently. Section 195 of the Indian Penal Code and now Section 230 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita penalises giving of false evidence and fabricating evidence with the intent to procure a conviction in a capital case. It is punishable with life imprisonment. It is time this law is implemented. Responsible police officers of the highest to the lowest rank must be prosecuted under the law. Police officers cannot be prosecuted for failing to collect sufficient evidence or if a prosecution fails to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. However, in a case such as the 7/11 blasts where officers have lied on oath about recording contemporaneous confessions, where there is stark evidence of brutal torture, where officers have deliberately destroyed the accused's CDR despite repeated applications by the defence for the CDR knowing that would exonerate the accused–such criminal action from the custodians of the law must be prosecuted under the law. If this is not done, there will be no acknowledgement by the State that they have failed the victims, failed society and undermined national security.
The Hindu
21 minutes ago
- The Hindu
CPI(M), Congress to highlight ‘voter fraud' in Thrissur LS polls in campaign against BJP
The ruling front and the Opposition in the State seem set to spotlight alleged voter fraud in the 2024 Thrissur Lok Sabha elections in their campaigning against the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) ahead of the local body elections later in the year. The possibility of electoral malpractices is arguably gaining political traction in Kerala after Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi accused the Election Commission of India (ECI) of colluding with the BJP to add over a lakh phoney voters to the electoral list in at least one Assembly segment in a Lok Sabha constituency in Karnataka ahead of the 2024 general elections. Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPI(M)] general secretary M.A. Baby told reporters in Thrissur that the contours of the electoral fraud in Karnataka appeared evident in the Thrissur constituency too. He alleged that the ECI helped BJP booth agents add at least 30,000 bogus voters in Thrissur using fudged proof of domicile and forged identities. Charges against ECI Mr. Baby said the ECI had called a meeting of election officials from the Booth Level Officer (BLO) and upwards ahead of the 2024 polls to dilute the voter enrolment process. The ECI had authorised BLOs to add to the voters' list any person who has completed two days of residence in their jurisdiction, if the individual provided the slightest proof of domicile. Earlier, he said, a new voter qualified for the electoral list only if the person provided solid evidence of residence for at least six months. 'Guest workers, passers-by, and people outside the constituency found their way into the electoral list with the ctive collusion of ECI officials and BJP agents who provided them phoney identity proof and addresses of empty houses and apartments in Thrissur,' Mr. Baby said. District Congress Committee president Joseph Taget alleged that the ECI glossed over anomalies on the voters' list flagged by party workers. UDF leader N.K. Premachandran, MP, said the INDIA bloc allies would weigh impeaching the members of the constitutional body. BJP response M.T. Ramesh, BJP's core committee member, rubbished the CPI(M)-Congress claims. He said Mr. Gopi won by over 75,000 votes. He said the surprising victory stung both parties and signalled the end of UDF-LDF 'revolving door' politics in Kerala. 'The CPI(M) and Congress had no complaints about the electoral list during the voter enrolment phase,' he said.
