&w=3840&q=100)
Bihar SIR row 'largely a trust deficit issue', says Supreme Court
The apex court is hearing a clutch of petitions challenging the EC's June 24 directive, ordering SIR of Bihar electoral roll. The directive requires voters not listed in the 2003 electoral roll to submit documents proving their citizenship. Those born after December 2004 must also furnish the citizenship documents of both parents, with additional requirements if a parent is a foreign national.
'If out of 7.9 crore voters, 7.24 crore responded to SIR, it demolishes the theory of one crore voters missing or disenfranchised," the bench told senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for petitioner and RJD leader Manoj Jha.
Sibal contended that despite the residents possessing Aadhaar cards, ration cards and electoral photo identity cards (EPICs), officials refused to accept the documents.
Most of the population of Bihar, Sibal also argued, do not possess the documents specified as acceptable by the EC.
The Supreme Court, however, remarked that the possibility of nobody possessing these documents was "a very sweeping argument".
"It is a very sweeping statement that in Bihar nobody has the documents. If this happens in Bihar, then what will happen in other parts of the country," the top court asked.
Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), one of the petitioners, said that the EC had not published a list of names of the 65 lakh persons who have been deleted from the draft roll. Further, the EC had also not specified who the dead or migrated persons are, he said.
Meanwhile, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for one of the petitioners, argued that the EC cannot place the burden of proof of citizenship on the voters in the guise of revising the electoral rolls.
"Today, in the guise of methodology of revising the roll, they are reversing the burden of proof of citizenship, saying prove your citizenship, that too in two-and-a-half months," Singhvi said.
Political activist Yogendra Yadav, who addressed the court in person, questioned the data given by the poll panel and said instead of 7.9 crore voters, there was a total adult population of 8.18 crore and the design of SIR exercise was to delete the voters.
"They (EC) were not able to find any individual whose name was added and booth level officers visited house to house for deletion of names," Yadav said, calling it a case of "total disenfranchisement".
The hearing will continue on Wednesday.
In the previous hearings, the court had said that the EC is a constitutional authority and it is deemed to act in accordance with law, but in case of mass exclusion of voters, the court would have to step in.
'The Election Commission of India, being a constitutional authority, is deemed to act in accordance with the law. If any wrongdoing is done, you bring it to the notice of the court. We will hear you,' the court had told the petitioners.
The court had observed that the petitions raised 'an important question, which goes to the very root of the functioning of the democracy in the country — the right to vote'.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Economic Times
2 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Probe link between Noida officials and landowners, says SC
Supreme Court Synopsis The Supreme Court has mandated a preliminary investigation into potential collusion between Noida officials and landowners concerning land acquisition payouts. This action follows a resumed hearing regarding inflated compensation to ineligible landowners. A special investigation team (SIT) consisting of three IPS officers will probe irregularities, examining financial trails and asset acquisitions to ascertain any collusion. The Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered a preliminary inquiry into an alleged collusion between Noida officials and landowners on land acquisition payouts. The development took place during the resumed hearing of a case linked to alleged inflated compensation to ineligible landowners. ADVERTISEMENT A bench comprising justice Surya Kant and justice Joymalya Bagchi ordered the constitution of a special investigation team comprising three IPS officers to probe irregularities in the land acquisition payouts. The bench ordered an inquiry after perusing a report of an SIT - set up earlier - which flagged shortcomings in the functioning of Noida Authority. The court said that no new building projects should be taken up in Noida without environment impact assessment (EIA) clearance and permission from the green bench of the Supreme Court, which hears cases related to the environment. The new three-member SIT will replace the earlier one and will work on a new mandate. ON financial trail The previous SIT's findings pointed out excessive payments in 20 cases and said some Noida officials were suspected of involvement. The new SIT has been asked to examine financial trails, including bank accounts of officials, their families and landowners, as well as assets acquired during the period in question, to ascertain collusion. (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel) (Catch all the Business News, Breaking News, Budget 2025 Events and Latest News Updates on The Economic Times.) Subscribe to The Economic Times Prime and read the ET ePaper online. NEXT STORY


Time of India
5 minutes ago
- Time of India
Expanded list of docs to prove citizenship voter-friendly: SC
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday orally remarked that the Election Commission's decision to expand the list of acceptable documents for establishing a voter's identity in the Bihar Special Intensive Revision (SIR) was "actually voter-friendly." A division bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi orally remarked that the expansion of documents leads to "expansion of choice" giving the voters "more options". Finance Value and Valuation Masterclass - Batch 4 By CA Himanshu Jain View Program Artificial Intelligence AI For Business Professionals Batch 2 By Ansh Mehra View Program Finance Value and Valuation Masterclass - Batch 3 By CA Himanshu Jain View Program Artificial Intelligence AI For Business Professionals By Vaibhav Sisinity View Program Finance Value and Valuation Masterclass - Batch 2 By CA Himanshu Jain View Program Finance Value and Valuation Masterclass Batch-1 By CA Himanshu Jain View Program Speaking for the bench, Justice Bagchi told one of the counsels for the petitioners that "we can understand your argument on exclusion of Aadhaar card but increasing the number of (acceptable) documents gives the voters more options". The Bench said this in light of contention raised by the petitioners that in the past the list of documents under a revision of rolls was not more than seven as compared to eleven in Bihar's SIR. Weighing in, Justice Kant orally remarked "things would have been different if you (voter) had to submit all the eleven documents. Then it would have been against the voters. But (in the instant case) ECI has given eleven options". The Bench also questioned the contention raised by another counsel for the petitioners that ECI did not have the power to conduct the special intensive revision (SIR). Live Events The Bench referred to Section 21(3) of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1950, which says "the Election Commission may at any time, for reasons to be recorded, direct a special revision of the electoral roll for any constituency or part of a constituency in such manner as it may think fit." Justice Bagchi added that the residuary power of the Election Commission flows from Article 324 of the Constitution as well. The Representation of the Peoples Act mentions both summary revision and special revision and the Commission has only added the word "intensive". Advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that the Election Commission should publish the list of the 65 lakh voters who were omitted from the list and also the reasons for the omission. Bhushan urged the Bench to issue an interim direction to the Commission to publish the names of persons excluded from the draft, to make the draft list on the website searchable, give names of persons recommended/not recommended by the BLO, and the reasons for deletion. The case will come up for resumed hearing on Thursday when the Election Commission will present its counter. At the last hearing, on Tuesday, the Bench had verbally remarked that "largely it appears to be a case of trust deficiency". The Bench had also told the counsels for petitioners that they should "agree" with the claim of Election Commission that a "detailed inquiry is not required" for the purpose of preparing draft rolls. The Bench had questioned the petitioners if it was their argument that Aadhar card is a proof of citizenship. "Do we presume that it is your argument that Aadhar is proof of citizenship?", the Bench had questioned one of the counsels for the petitioners. Referring to the Aadhar act, the Bench had said that the Election Commission of India was right in submitting that an Aadhaar card is not a conclusive proof of citizenship. The argument by petitioners that electors in Bihar do not have a majority of documents sought by the ECI as proof did not find favour with the Bench. "Largely, it appears to be a case of trust is an integral part of India. If people in Bihar do not have (the documents) then people in other states won't also have", Justice Kant had orally observed on Tuesday.


Economic Times
6 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Why Maneka Gandhi says Delhi- NCR could face 1880s Paris-style problems if stray dogs are removed
Synopsis The Supreme Court's order to relocate stray dogs from Delhi-NCR to shelters has sparked controversy, with animal rights activists like Maneka Gandhi raising concerns about the order's practicality and potential ecological consequences. Gandhi warns that removing dogs could lead to an increase in rodents, drawing parallels to historical events like the rat infestation in 1880s Paris after dog removal. The Supreme Court's directive to remove all stray dogs from Delhi-NCR streets and place them in shelters has triggered a heated debate over whether the move is realistic or wise. On Monday, the court ordered the immediate removal of all stray dogs from public spaces in Delhi, Gurugram, Noida, and the decision, former Union minister and animal rights activist Maneka Gandhi criticised the order, calling it 'impractical', 'financially unviable' and 'potentially harmful' to the region's ecological warned of unintended consequences, saying that removing strays could create new problems. 'Within 48 hours, three lakh dogs will come from Ghaziabad, Faridabad, because there's food here in Delhi. And once you remove the dogs, monkeys will come on the ground... I've seen this happen at my own house.'Recalling a historical example, Gandhi referred to 1880s Paris: 'When they removed dogs and cats, the city was overrun with rats,' she said, describing dogs as 'rodent control animals'.In the late 19th century, stray dogs roamed Paris in large numbers and were often seen as dangerous transmitters of rabies, fleas, and filth. The city administration considered them a threat to cleanliness, public health, and safety. In the 1880s, a large-scale removal, and in some cases slaughter, of dogs was carried out in an attempt to curb rabies and make the French capital more 'modern' and safe. While the historical record on cats is less clear for this period, it is believed that removing dogs caused an unexpected spike in the city's rat population, as the animals had been an important natural check on in Stray Dogs and the Making of Modern Paris notes that in 1883, pharmacist Emile Capron appealed for the removal of stray dogs, arguing they scared horses and caused accidents. However, there is no definitive evidence of a simultaneous large-scale killing of idea of a 'cat massacre' in Paris has its own separate history. Historian Robert Darnton wrote about a grim incident in his 1984 book The Great Cat Massacre and Other Episodes in French Cultural History. This was based on an event from the 1730s, when a group of printing press apprentices in Paris tortured and killed cats in protest against their working conditions. According to History Today, the episode was part of a strange blend of cruelty, social commentary, and dark humour that reflected the tensions of the time. Inputs from agencies