Hearing petitions linked to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter lists in Bihar, the Supreme Court disagreed with the argument that the Election Commission’s document check exercise is an “anti-voter” and exclusionary move.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Singhvi was arguing before the bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi this morning when the bench noted that the number of eligible documents during the summary revision of voter lists was seven, but this was raised to 11 for the Special Intensive Revision.
Justice Bagchi said, “We get your exclusionary argument from Aadhaar. But the point on the number of documents is, in fact, voter-friendly and not against it. Look at the number of documents by which you can prove citizenship.”
Echoing his brother judge’s view, Justice Kant said, “If they ask for all 11 documents, it is anti-voter. But if any one document is asked for, then…”
Mr Singhvi stressed that the requirement is “exclusionary”. “I will show how. An exclusionary test is sought here. See what is asked for… if you don’t have land… options 5,6,7 are out. Option 1 and 2 do not exist. Residence certificates are not there. Passport is illusory,” he said.
Justice Kant intervened and said, “Let us not project Bihar this way”. “In terms of All India services, maximum representation is from this state. The maximum IAS, IPS, IFS (officers) are from there. This cannot happen if the younger population is not motivated,” he said.
Mr Singhvi responded, “We have very talented scientists etc, from there, but this is limited to a section of people. Bihar has rural, flood-prone areas. There are poverty-stricken areas. What is the point of making a list of 11 documents for them? The issue is that most people in Bihar will not have these documents. We are talking about real, authentic scrutiny.”
Citing the example of passports, Mr Singhvi said only 1-2 per cent of Bihar’s population have passports and put the number at 36 lakh. The bench replied that 36 lakh passport coverage is “good”.
“You have given 11 documents and three of these 11 documents, the three boxes are empty without notice. The other two are doubtful. So this impressive list of 11 is nothing but a house of cards. It is not overlapping but supplantation,” he said.
The senior lawyer argued that the people are being asked to prove they are citizens, and said this ran afoul of the 1995 Lal Babu judgment. The Lal Babu judgment upheld a voter’s rights and mandated that any move to delete a name from the voter list must be made based on adequate evidence and the voter must be provided an opportunity to make his/her case.
Mr Singhvi then said they are not challenging the Election Commission’s rules to delete names from voter lists. “There is a detailed list of rules that need to be followed for the deletion of voters. This is against the principle of natural justice.”
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for a petitioner Association for Democratic Reforms, said the entitlement to be on the electoral roll is a sacrosanct one. “Once included in the voter list, the voter has a statutory right to be on the list, he argues,” he said.
