"Will Step In": Top Court To Poll Body On Mass Exclusion In Bihar Rolls Revision
The Supreme Court on Tuesday said the Election Commission (EC) is a constitutional authority and it is deemed to act in accordance with law, but if there is mass exclusion in the special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, the court will step in.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi fixed a timeline for considering a batch of pleas challenging the Election Commission's SIR exercise in Bihar, and said that hearing on the issue will be held on August 12 and 13.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal and advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for petitioners, once again alleged that people are being left out from the draft list to be published on August 1 by the poll panel, and they will lose their crucial right of voting.
Bhushan said the EC has issued a statement that 65 lakh persons have not submitted the enumeration forms during the SIR process as they are either dead or have permanently shifted elsewhere.
He submitted that these people will have to apply afresh for inclusion in the list.
Justice Surya Kant said, "The Election Commission of India, being a Constitutional authority, is deemed to act in accordance with the law. If any wrong doing is done, you bring to the notice of the court. We will hear you."
Justice Bagchi told Bhushan, "Your apprehension is that 65 lakh-odd voters will not feature in the draft list. Now ECI is seeking correction in the electoral roll. We are overviewing the process as a judicial authority. If there is mass exclusion, we will immediately step in. You bring 15 people whom they say are dead and are alive." Sibal, appearing for RJD MP Manoj Jha, said the Election Commission knows who these 65 lakh people are and if they mention their names in the draft list, no one will have a problem.
"If the draft list is conspicuously silent, you will bring to our notice," Justice Kant said.
Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the poll panel, said that even after the draft list publication, enumeration forms can be filed.
The bench asked the petitioners and the poll panel to file their written submissions by August 8.
It appointed nodal officers from petitioners side and the Election Commission side for filing written submissions/compilations.
On Monday, underscoring the "presumption of genuineness" of Aadhaar and voter ID, the top court refused to stay the publication of the draft electoral rolls in poll-bound Bihar, and said it would once and for all decide pleas against the Election Commission's SIR of electoral rolls.
It asked the poll panel to continue accepting Aadhaar and voter ID for the SIR exercise in Bihar in compliance with its order, saying both documents had a "presumption of genuineness".
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for NGO Association for Democratic Reforms, had submitted that the electoral rolls should not be finalised in the interim, pressing for an interim stay on the publication of the draft rolls on August 1.
The apex court, however, referred to the top court's previous order noting the petitioners did not press for an interim relief, which couldn't be allowed now, and said the matter would be interpreted once and for all.
On July 10, a bench headed by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia asked the EC to consider Aadhaar, voter ID and ration cards as valid documents as it allowed the poll panel to continue with its exercise in Bihar.
The top court on Monday said the Election Commission suggested that the list of 11 documents for SIR was not inclusive but exhaustive, and they were using both Aadhaar and voter IDs for the purpose of identification.
Dwivedi said Aadhaar was not a proof of citizenship and the voter card was not relied upon as it was a revision exercise or else there was no use of such an exercise.
Justice Kant had then remarked, "Any document on earth can be forged. The Election Commission can deal with cases of forgery on a case to case basis. Instead of en masse exclusion it must be en masse inclusion." Dwivedi said the poll panel was accepting both Aadhaar and voter IDs but with certain supporting documents.
The EC affidavit has justified its ongoing SIR of electoral rolls in Bihar, saying it adds to the purity of the election by "weeding out ineligible persons" from the electoral rolls.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
24 minutes ago
- Time of India
No category called 'suspicious voters' in RP Act, can't manipulate EVMs: Law minister
. NEW DELHI: There is no category of voters called "suspicious voters" under the Representation of the People (RP) Act, law minister Arjun Ram Meghwal said on Thursday in response to a question in Rajya Sabha. Samajwadi Party MP Ramji Lal Suman raised the question whether in the last Lok Sabha elections suspicious voters had also cast their votes. He said there is a lot of speculation about suspicious voters, and alleged that the results can be manipulated on electronic voting machines (EVMs). He asked the minister if the votes were being cast correctly. " Election Commission has informed that there is no category of suspicious voters as per the RP Act," the minister said, and added that EC further informed that "the election results cannot be manipulated on EVMs". Meghwal said there is no doubt in the fairness and integrity of EVMs which, he said, have stood the test of several elections, public and legal scrutiny over the years. "EC has further informed that in at least 42 petitions against use of EVMs which have been filed before various high courts and Supreme Court, and after going through various aspects of the technological soundness and the administrative safeguards involved in the use of EVMs, the courts have repeatedly held that EVMs are tamper proof, credible and reliable," the minister added. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like The Most Beautiful Women In The World Undo He said EC has mentioned that to dispel any apprehension of any kind, EVM-related documents, such as manual on EVM and VVPAT, presentation on EVM, status paper on EVM, legal history of EVMs and VVPATs and FAQs are available in public domain on EC website that anyone can check.
Time of India
29 minutes ago
- Time of India
Will not stall scheme named after CM: HC
Chennai: In a reprieve to the Tamil Nadu govt, Madras high court on Thursday refused to stall the launch of the public health scheme 'Nalam Kaakkum Stalin', named after Tamil Nadu chief minister M K Stalin . The first bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan refused any interim relief to former AIADMK law minister C Ve Shanmugam, who alleged that the scheme named after Stalin was in violation of the guidelines set by the Supreme Court and the Election Commission of India (ECI). The bench, however, made it clear that any welfare scheme launched by the state must be in strict conformity with the guidelines set by the Supreme Court pertaining to the use of pictures and names of heads of govts. You Can Also Check: Chennai AQI | Weather in Chennai | Bank Holidays in Chennai | Public Holidays in Chennai When the plea came up for hearing, advocate-general P S Raman submitted that the copies of the advertisements produced by the petitioner, comprising the name of the DMK party and symbol, were not issued by the govt of Tamil Nadu using public funds. Govt advertisements are released only through the Directorate of Public Information (DIPR), which carries a code as part of the advertisement, he added. To this, senior advocate Vijay Narayan, representing the petitioner, submitted that even the social media handle of the govt has shared the advertisements. Raman further alleged that even during the earlier AIADMK govt, every welfare scheme was announced in the name of the former chief minister Jayalalithaa. Representing the DMK, senior advocate P Wilson submitted that the petition moved by the former law minister is nothing but politically motivated litigation. Recording the submissions, the bench directed the Election Commission, the Tamil Nadu govt, and the DMK to file their counter in 10 days. "Meanwhile, we will pass an interim order stating that the guidelines set by the Supreme Court regarding the use of pictures and the name of heads of the govts in govt schemes must be strictly adhered to," the bench said.
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
"Refugees Or Illegal Entrants?": Top Court On Rohingyas' Status In India
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday said the first major issue to be dealt with in cases concerning Rohingyas is whether they are refugees or illegal entrants. A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and N Kotiswar Singh said once that is decided, the other issues might be consequential. The court observed this while hearing a batch of pleas concerning Rohingyas in the country. "The first major issue is simple, are they refugees or illegal entrants," Justice Kant observed. The bench took note of the broad issues that arise for its consideration in the pleas relating to Rohingyas. "Whether the Rohingyas are entitled to be declared as refugees? If so, what protections, privileges or rights they are entitled to?" the bench said. It said the second issue is if the Rohingyas are not refugees and are illegal entrants, whether the action of the Centre and states in deporting them was justified. "Even if the Rohingyas have been held to be illegal entrants, can they be detained indefinitely or they are entitled to be released on bail, subject to such conditions as the court may deem fit to be imposed?" it asked. The court said the other issue raised in the petitions is whether the Rohingyas, who have not been detained and are living in refugee camps, have been provided basic amenities like drinking water, sanitation and education. "If the Rohingyas are illegal entrants, whether the Government of India and the states are obligated to deport them in accordance with law," it noted. The bench segregated the pleas in three groups -- one relating to Rohingyas, another not pertaining to the issue of Rohingyas and one plea that it said pertains to a different matter altogether. It said the three groups of matters would be determined separately and it would fix those for hearing on consecutive Wednesdays. The bench indicated that on the point of those who were found to be illegal entrants and on the question of the State's responsibility to deport them, it could only lay down the principles. During the hearing, the bench asked why these petitions were tagged for hearing. The counsel appearing for the petitioners said there were overlapping issues in the pleas and one of the core issues pertained to the detention of Rohingyas. One of the lawyers said the Rohingyas cannot be detained indefinitely. On May 16, the supreme court had rapped some petitioners who had claimed that 43 Rohingya refugees, including women and children, were dropped in the Andaman sea for deportation to Myanmar and said "when the country is passing through a difficult time, you come out with fanciful ideas". It had questioned the authenticity of the material placed before it by petitioner Mohammad Ismail and others and refused to stay any further deportation of Rohingyas, saying a similar relief was denied by the court earlier. On May 8, the top court had said if the Rohingya refugees in the country were found to be foreigners under Indian laws, they would have to be deported. The court had then referred to its earlier order and remarked that the identity cards issued by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) may not be of any help to them under the laws. (Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
