SC order on Bihar voter roll revision vindicates concerns: CPI(ML) leader Dipankar Bhattacharya
In a statement issued after the SC order, Bhattacharya said, "Finally, we have an interim order from the apex court in Bihar's SIR case. The order rejects the EC's stubborn refusal to heed the suggestions already made by the Supreme Court and addresses three core concerns about the practical implementation of the drive. This interim order vindicates some of the basic objections and apprehensions raised from day one since the sudden launch of the SIR".
Earlier in the day, a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi directed the EC to publish the names of the 65 lakh voters deleted from the list, along with reasons for deletion, to ensure transparency.
The bench passed the order while hearing pleas challenging the June 24 EC decision to conduct the SIR of the electoral rolls in Bihar.
"The issue of legality of SIR is yet to be determined by the Supreme Court. The interim order asks the EC to come clean about all the deletions with specific assigned reasons, make the information public and accessible to all electors, not routed through Booth Level Agents of political parties, and accept Aadhaar as a valid supporting document", Bhattacharya said
Bhattacharya is one of the petitioners who moved the top court, seeking direction for quashing the EC order.
"What happens to the 3.5 million migrant workers whose names have been removed? For people like Mintu Paswan, declared dead by the SIR, this could be a second lease of electoral life," he added.
He called for the EC to take responsibility for correcting its errors, suggesting the establishment of grievance redressal camps at booth and block levels.
"The scale of exclusion is massive, time is short, and most electors have been penalised without fault.
"The onus of correction should also be put on the perpetrators of error. That is the principle of fairness, natural justice and transparency that the EC had invoked as guiding tenets for the SIR in its counter affidavit filed before the SC on July 21", he said.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
15 minutes ago
- Time of India
'Why me, not Anurag Thakur?': Rahul questions CEC's affidavit warning; reiterates SIR 'stealing votes' in Bihar claim
NEW DELHI: Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on Sunday hit out at the Election Commission over its affidavit warning, doubling down on his allegation that the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter rolls in Bihar is nothing but "stealing votes." Launching a 1,300-km 'Voter Adhikar Yatra' from Sasaram along with RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav, Rahul in Aurangabad said, "SIR means stealing votes from the people of Bihar. Earlier, they used to do it secretly. Now they are doing it openly in front of everyone." "The Election Commission asks for an affidavit from me. But when Anurag Thakur says the same thing that I am saying, it does not ask for an affidavit from him," the leader of opposition added. His attack came shortly after Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar in a press conference, rejected the Opposition's allegations and insisted that the voter roll process was fully transparent. — RahulGandhi (@RahulGandhi) CEC Kumar issuing a stern warning said that Rahul Gandhi must either submit an affidavit supporting his claims or apologise within seven days. "If no declaration under oath given within 7 days, claims will be considered baseless and invalid…," he said, adding that those making unfounded allegations should apologise to the nation. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like American Investor Warren Buffett Recommends: 5 Books For Turning Your Life Around Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo The CEC rejected the Opposition's allegations, stressing that the voter roll process is transparent. "You all know that as per the law, the birth of every political party takes place only through registration with the Election Commission. So how can the EC discriminate among those very parties? For the EC, there is no ruling side or opposition side; all are equal," the CEC added. Rahul further responded to CEC Kumar's clarification saying that the EC cannot release CCTV footage of voters due to privacy concerns, and stressed that the Commission treats all political parties equally. "I want to ask them, you made a law for CCTV. Then why did you change that law? Why did the government change it? Do you know that no case can be filed against the Election Commissioner? Do you know when this law was made? This law was made in 2023. Why was this law made in 2023?" the leader of opposition asserted. "Because Narendra Modi and Amit Shah want that no action can be taken against the Election Commission. Because the Election Commission is helping them and is stealing votes with them," he added, alleging that the PM Modi led-government deliberately changed CCTV-related laws in 2023 . Kumar had earlier said that the EC cannot share CCTV footage of voters as it violates privacy, and reminded that all political parties are equal before the Commission. "We saw a few days ago that photos of many voters were presented to the media without their permission. Allegations were made against them, they were used. Should the Election Commission share the CCTV videos of any voter including their mothers, daughters-in-law, daughters? Only those whose names are in the voter list cast their votes to elect their candidate," CEC Kumar had said. Rahul also mocked the voter deletions, recalling a viral video he shared last week of having tea with people who had been marked 'dead' in the revised draft list. "We, INDIA alliance leaders, have made up our mind that we will not allow vote theft in you see my video where I am drinking tea with dead people? The Election Commission killed people who are alive. Their name was deleted. I asked them why their name was deleted?' he said. The Voter Adhikar Yatra, supported by the INDIA bloc partners including the RJD, CPI(ML), and VIP, will run for 16 days across 20 districts and conclude with a rally in Patna on September 1. Supporters carrying party flags raised slogans of 'vote chor, gaddi chhor' against the BJP and the EC during the launch. With the Bihar Assembly polls just three months away, the yatra is being seen as a united show of strength by the Opposition in the state.
Hans India
33 minutes ago
- Hans India
‘Stealing not considered sin but calling someone a thief is': Opposition slams EC over authentication appeal
Congress-led opposition parties hit back at the Election Commission on Sunday, over its appeal to authenticate their "vote chori" claims by filing a supporting affidavit and also termed its elaborate media address on the Bihar Special Intensive Revision (SIR) controversy a mere eyewash. Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar, flanked by senior EC officials, held a press conference in the capital and claimed that deliberate attempts were being made to fearmonger and misguide the voters of Bihar, apparently by opposition parties. It also stated that such fearmongering won't deter it from pursuing and implementing laid-down protocols. Replying to the CEC's presser, Congress accused it of being partisan towards the ruling party, while the RJD said that its clarification was devoid of any substance. Congress leader Pawan Khera, in a strong rebuttal, said: "Stealing is not considered a sin, but calling someone a thief is? Stop the theft, and we will stop calling you thieves. Why hasn't anyone given an account of one lakh votes from Mahadevapura?" Further accusing it breach of privacy, he said: "(BJP leader) Anurag Thakur is carrying digital voter lists of six constituencies—where did he get them from? Isn't that a breach of privacy? Did the Election Commission issue him a notice? No. But when it comes to CCTV footage, you say it violates privacy..." RJD MP Manoj Kumar Jha said: "No answers were given. Not a single question was answered. Maybe someone told them to hold the press conference because it was becoming embarrassing. So, they went ahead, but what was achieved? Which question did they actually answer? Forget the political parties—the voters are not convinced by your behaviour and conduct." "Logic cannot be used to justify opacity. Opacity means lack of transparency. The biggest concern is that the Election Commission appears neither impartial nor neutral. This should be a matter of serious concern for you." Purnia MP Pappu Yadav said, "The EC has no understanding of the Constitution or Babasaheb's (B.R. Ambedkar) ideas. After indulging in theft and robbery, will they speak about the Constitution?"
The Hindu
33 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Constitutional validity does not mean desirability, ex-CJI Khanna tells one nation, one election panel
Former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna has told a parliamentary committee scrutinising the simultaneous election Bill that the constitutional validity of a proposal in no way amounts to a pronouncement upon the desirability or necessity of its provisions. In his written opinion to the committee, Justice Khanna, however, said arguments related to the dilution of the country's federal structure might be raised about the constitutional amendment Bill, as he listed the various claims made supporting and criticising the concept, sources said. Most of the experts, who have shared their views with the committee headed by BJP MP P.P. Chaudhary, have rejected the charge that the proposals are unconstitutional but have flagged some issues with the current provisions of the Bill. Justice Khanna, who is scheduled to interact with the committee on Tuesday (August 19, 2025), has joined a few other former CJIs in raising concerns over the extent of power given to the Election Commission (EC) in the Bill. He said the Bill conferred "unfettered discretion" on the EC in deciding that an Assembly poll could not be conducted along with that of the Lok Sabha, and to make a recommendation to the President on these lines, the sources said. "This clause will be open to question as violating and offending the basic structure of the Constitution on the ground of being arbitrary and offending Article 14 of the Constitution," he is learnt to have said. Article 14 deals with equality before law. Indirect President's rule Justice Khanna added, "Postponement of elections by the EC may result in indirect President's rule, in other words, the Union government taking over the reins of the State government. This will be questionable judicially, as violating the federal structure envisaged by the Constitution." Commenting on various arguments related to the Bill, he said the fact that simultaneous elections were held in 1951-52, 1957, 1962 and 1967, was a "coincidence", certainly not an express or not even an implied constitutional mandate. Justice Khanna said there was a difference between "merit review" and "judicial review". When the Supreme Court or High Courts uphold constitutional validity, it was a mere affirmation of the legislative power and that the amendment or the provision was not violative of the constitutional limitations, he said. "The court decisions in no way amount to pronouncement upon the desirability or necessity of such provisions," he added. Before Justice Khanna, former CJIs D.Y. Chandrachud, J.S. Khehar, U.U. Lalit and Ranjan Gogoi have interacted with the committee members on various provisions of what is often referred to as "one nation one election" Bill. The BJP and its allies have supported the Bill, asserting that it will boost growth by cutting down on expenditure caused by the relentless poll cycle, leading to frequent deployment of security and civil officials on poll duty and the imposition of the Model Code of Conduct. The Opposition has argued that it undermines democratic principles and weakens federal structure.
