New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the Election Commission of India (ECI), the Centre, the Chief Electoral Officer and the Maharashtra government on a plea challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Maharashtra, alleging large-scale deletion of voters, while declining to grant immediate relief on extending the deadline for filing claims and objections or halting publication of the final voters’ list.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana posted the matter for further hearing on November 5.
The plea was filed by Arun Anandagiri, who questioned the deletion of names from the draft electoral rolls and the procedure prescribed for voters seeking restoration of their names.
Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate Arvind P. Datar submitted that nearly 33 per cent of Maharashtra’s approximately nine crore voters, amounting to around three crore people, had been struck off following publication of the draft rolls.
He said 1.22 crore voters had been deleted on the ground of “logical discrepancy”. Datar argued that voters whose names had been removed were being asked to submit Form 6, which is intended for fresh voter registration, despite having voted in previous elections.
He contended that requiring existing voters to file the form could expose them to allegations of making a false declaration, as applicants are required to state that they have not been registered as voters earlier.
Referring to a recent Delhi High Court order, the senior advocate said that an assurance against prosecution did not resolve the underlying problem. He urged the top court to direct the ECI to introduce a separate form for voters whose names had been deleted during the revision exercise.
“Nobody will be prosecuted,” CJI Kant-led Bench assured the petitioner’s counsel. Datar also sought an extension of the deadline for filing claims and objections, which fell on Monday, and requested that the ECI be restrained from finalising the electoral rolls until the issue was adjudicated.
He argued that Maharashtra did not face any immediate election requiring the list to be finalised on the existing schedule. However, the CJI Kant-led Bench was reluctant to pass an ex parte order without hearing from the poll body. It said that the Supreme Court had extended deadlines in SIR exercises conducted in other states and indicated that appropriate directions could be considered after examining the circumstances.
Under the revised schedule for Maharashtra, the draft electoral roll was published on August 31, while the period for filing claims and objections was extended until October 26. The disposal of claims and objections is scheduled to continue until November 10, with the final electoral roll slated for publication on November 16.
The Supreme Court had earlier upheld the ECI’s authority to conduct the SIR exercise, holding that the revision was within the poll body’s constitutional and statutory powers and was intended to protect the integrity of electoral rolls and ensure free and fair elections.
In its judgment delivered on May 27, the apex court held that the exercise was authorised under Article 324 of the Constitution read with Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. It also ruled that the revision process was accompanied by procedural safeguards against arbitrary exclusion.
The apex court had further clarified that the ECI could examine questions relating to citizenship for electoral purposes, while making it clear that such scrutiny would not amount to a final determination of an individual’s citizenship.
(IANS)
