The Supreme Court was abuzz on Tuesday with discussions about the Bihar SIR, concerning the revision of electoral rolls. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal argued for the petitioners, highlighting an alarming issue where 12 living individuals were marked as deceased in a small electoral area, pointing out discrepancies by the Booth Level Officer (BLO) in executing duties effectively. During the session, the court inquired about the absence of these individuals in court. Sibal responded by mentioning their presence and inclusion in a few petitions, asserting the entire process was under scrutiny.
Sibal argued that the Election Commission was informed about errors, where live individuals were shown as deceased, as verified by a spouse's account accompanied by video evidence. He insisted that thorough re-examination of the voter list must adhere to the rules, but neither were Form 4 sent to households nor documents collected prior to issuing the draft, violating Rule 10 and Rule 12. Furthermore, he mentioned discrepancies even in objections under Rule 13.
Sibal elaborated that the Representation of the People Act explicitly mandates the onus of proof on the objector to provide evidence for removal from the voter list, like death, address change, or non-citizenship. He argued that the Election Commission cannot demand documents from individuals unless necessary proofs are furnished by the objectors.
It's the Authority's Responsibility to Prove Non-citizenship - Supreme Court
The Supreme Court bench noted that Rule 10 pertained to preparing the draft electoral roll. Should anyone's name be omitted, they could apply under Form 6. While indeed, challenging the wrongful removal, it remains the authority's responsibility to prove non-citizenship, the validity of Form 4 issued via BLOs by ECI could form a legitimate argument. Sibal countered by indicating that the draft list was rolled out without proper survey procedures.
Neglect of Constitutional Provisions, Arbitrary Actions by BLO - Kapil Sibal
Petitioners' lawyer Gopal Shankar Narayan reflected on a prior statement by the court asserting intervention upon mass exclusion. He unveiled that 6.5 million names were eradicated from the draft, yet a corresponding list was not provided by the commission. Meanwhile, Sibal accused BLOs and officials of arbitrary actions, disregarding constitutional provisions throughout SIR. He added while Form 6 lists Aadhaar as a document for registering new voters, the Election Commission has been overlooking Aadhaar in SIR.
Errors Inevitable in Magnitudinous Process - Election Commission
Rakesh Dwivedi, counsel for the Election Commission, retorted that it's a draft roll and people can register grievances to amend it. He added that it’s natural for minor errors in such a substantial process, hence a corrective procedure and timeframe exist.
Bring Those Declared Deceased to Court - Justice Surya Kant
Justice Surya Kant insisted if any living person is declared deceased, they should appear in court for correction. Sibal noted it's a recurring issue across booths, making it impractical to bring everyone to court. The Supreme Court queried Sibal if he questions the integrity of SIR or the adopted procedure alone. He clarified their stance on the latter, arguing against unsolicited document requests during the voter list preparation stage.
