'Can't Make Decision In Dark': Top Court Wants Clarity On Deleted Bihar Voters

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it needs more clarity on deleted names from the final electoral roll published by the Election Commission after carrying out the Special Intensive Revision in Bihar.

Observing that a decision on the validity of the SIR in Bihar cannot be made in the dark, the top court asked the petitioners to provide affidavits with examples of at least 100-200 such persons who have been wrongfully deleted from the voter list.

The bench headed by Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi posed several questions to Election Commission as well as petitioners, including the Association of Democratic Reforms and assorted political parties, over the claims of unfair deletion of voters.

Justice Bagchi told the EC of some confusion the poll body needs to clarify when it comes to the addition and deletion of names in the final list.

The judge said there were 65 lakh voters deleted in the draft list published on August 30. At that time, the court greenlit the removal of people who had died or moved out of Bihar, but told the poll body that deleted names' data should be published in district electoral offices.

Justice Bagchi also said there seems to be an increase in the number of voters in the final list, but there is confusion over the identities of these additions. "Is it an add-on of the deleted names or add-on of independent new names?" the court asked.

Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the EC, said most of them are new voters.

Justice Bagchi then said the court would need clarity and it should not be seen as interference by the court but as an exercise in aid of the electoral process. "You have draft and final list. Omission is clear from the names. Just cull out that and give us information," the court said.

Justice Surya Kant, however, asked the petitioners why no one claiming wrongful deletion had appeared before the court. He asked advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the Association of Democratic Reforms, one of the petitioners, to bring examples of at least 100 to 200 people to show wrongful deletion of voters from vulnerable sections of society.

Bhushan asked: "How many persons will come like this? EC rules say objections and deletion have to go on website with reasons. Nothing has been put on the website. They have violated their own rules, guidelines, manual, etc."

At this point the EC urged the court the petitioners should be asked to file an affidavit on record of the claims they were making about mass exclusion of women, poor people, and Muslims.

Advocate Nizam Pasha told the court many people whose names had been deleted are still awaiting the order from EC and can only file claims on receipt of that order.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Singhvi also said the persons who had been deleted - 3.66 lakh - did not get any notice, neither any reason for deletion. They can't appeal as they don't have notice, he said. "There is an appellate provision but there is no question of appeal because there is no information."

Justice Surya Kant, at this point, said if the court were to get a list of these 3.66 lakh people, it would direct the EC to communicate to them.

"Each individual has a right to appeal," he said. He further added the court could not arrive at a decision in the dark and asked the petitioners to give proof and EC to ascertain itself.

Justice Surya Kant also observed the question is - for whom is this exercise to be done by the court? The court can only interfere when there is actual wrongful deletion, he said.

"We want to know the people who have been deleted from voter lists and not filing appeal." Justice Surya Kant added. He reminded the petitioners that there are also illegal immigrants who do not want to be exposed.

These remarks were made when the ADR told the court that it is impossible for every deleted individual voter to file affidavit in court. "Let's have a list of 100-200 people who say 'we want to file an appeal but don't have the order;," Justice Surya Kant told the petitioners.

The top court ultimately asked the ADR to file a detailed affidavit and asked the EC to prepare a response to petitioners claims' by Thursday, the next date of hearing.