In response to petitions alleging that the exercise may disenfranchise a large number of rural and marginalised groups, the ECI listed six key grounds for its action, asserting that constitutional and statutory powers fully back the process.
Photo: IANS
The Election Commission of India (ECI) in a detailed affidavit in the Supreme Court has defended its ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, asserting that the process aims to ensure inclusion—not exclusion—of eligible voters ahead of the October-November Assembly elections.
In response to petitions alleging that the exercise may disenfranchise a large number of rural and marginalised groups, the ECI listed six key grounds for its action, asserting that constitutional and statutory powers fully back the process.
Advertisement
The poll panel has stated that under Article 324 of the Constitution, the superintendence, direction, and control of electoral rolls rest solely with the Commission, and “Denial of this authority would result in inclusion of illegal immigrants and foreigners” in the electoral rolls.
Advertisement
The Commission said this countering petitioners’ objections to document verification for establishing citizenship. It has stated that Section 3 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 forms the basis for its declaration form, and not any arbitrary executive action.
“The ECI, being a constitutional body, would have constitutional authority to determine whether the constitutional requirement of citizenship has been fulfilled by a person claiming the right to be included in the electoral roll,” the affidavit said.
On the burden of proof being shifted to the individuals, the poll panel said citizenship is a threshold qualification, and its proof lies within the special knowledge of the individual claiming to be a citizen of India and, therefore it is incumbent on the said individual to provide such proof. “It is incumbent on the individual to provide such proof,” the ECI said, asserting that the process is not exclusionary but
in line with constitutional and statutory duties to prevent inclusion of illegal immigrants and foreigners in the electoral rolls.
The ECI rejected the argument that asking for parental documents amounted to overreach, terming it “patently erroneous, misleading, misconceived, and unsustainable”.
To allay concerns of disenfranchisement, the ECI affirmed that all electors submitting the enumeration form—even without supporting documents—will be included in the draft roll to be published on August 1. Further, those who miss the initial deadline of July 25 may still apply until September 1, before the final roll is published on September 30.
As a “special effort”, the ECI disclosed that it has provided political parties with lists of electors who have not submitted forms. “Political parties can trace them and get their enumeration forms filled through their Booth Level Agents (BLAs),” it said, adding that as of July 18, 94.68% electors were covered after accounting for duplicates, deaths, and migrations.
The Commission has assured the Court that no entry will be deleted from the draft electoral rolls without enquiry and prior notice to the concerned person.
Every deletion, if proposed, must be backed by a “speaking order” by an Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) or Assistant ERO, in line with procedural fairness.
In a significant relief for older voters, the ECI said those whose names existed in the 2003 electoral rolls do not have to submit new documents. They simply need to submit the enumeration form along with an extract from the 2003 roll, to be provided by Booth Level Officers (BLOs).
For those born after 1985, parental linkage to 2003 roll-holders is sufficient proof, provided they produce evidence of relationship.
However, those born after December 2004 must furnish their own documents plus both parents’ documents—especially if one parent is a foreign national—including passport and visa details at birth.
The petitioners challenging the SIR exercise have questioned the timing and the documents being asked for, alleging violations of Articles 14, 19, 21, 325 and 326 and the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
They have flagged – onerous documentation burden, short deadlines (ending July 25), exclusion of Aadhaar voter ID and ration cards, shift of burden from State to citizen and its disproportionate impact on rural and marginalised communities.
On July 10, a vacation bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Joymalya Bagchi refused to stay the SIR exercise, but asked the ECI to consider accepting widely held IDs like Aadhaar, Voter ID, and ration cards as identity proof
Denial of these documents could result in unintended hardship, especially to the poor,”the Court had observed. The Court also flagged whether the ECI was encroaching upon the domain of the Central Government under the Citizenship Act.
The next hearing is scheduled for July 28.
Advertisement
