The Supreme Court of India on Thursday put the Election Commission (EC) on notice, directing it to be prepared with all necessary documents to counter serious allegations regarding the integrity of Bihar's electoral rolls. The court's instruction came during a hearing on a petition concerning the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the state's voter list.
Allegations of Massive Duplication and Lack of Transparency
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), presented stark allegations before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. Bhushan asserted that the SIR exercise in Bihar failed to eliminate over 5 lakh duplicate voter names from the rolls.
He further claimed that even specific duplicate names highlighted by petitioner Yogendra Yadav in a presentation before the Supreme Court back in October remained on the final voter list published by the EC after the SIR was completed. Bhushan accused the poll panel of displaying "astonishing adamancy" by refusing to run its own deduplication software through the voter list, a step that could potentially identify and remove these lakhs of duplicates.
EC Must Demonstrate Scrupulous Compliance: SC Bench
The bench, after hearing the arguments, turned to the EC's counsel, Eklavya Dwivedi. The judges emphasized that the Election Commission must respond to these factual aspects and keep its records ready for scrutiny. The court clearly stated that the EC is required to demonstrate that it "scrupulously followed the rules and regulations set by itself for SIR."
In response, Dwivedi informed the court that the Commission had already filed an affidavit stating that it had complied with all relevant rules, regulations, and directions from the Supreme Court.
Broader Questions on EC's Powers and Process
The hearing also delved into the constitutional and statutory limits of the Election Commission's powers. Bhushan argued that the stated purpose of the SIR was to identify and strike off foreigners and illegal migrants from the voter list. However, he contended that the EC lacks the constitutional, statutory, or judicial authority to determine a voter's citizenship.
He outlined the proper procedure: if a Booth Level Officer (BLO) finds a voter's citizenship doubtful, the EC can only refer the case to the competent authority. Until that authority makes a final decision—which can also be appealed in court—the EC cannot remove the person from the list if they submit an affidavit claiming Indian citizenship.
Echoing concerns about overreach, senior advocate Shoeb Alam, appearing for another petitioner, argued that while the general power of superintendence and conduct of elections is entrusted to the EC, the commission cannot claim powers beyond what is explicitly prescribed by statute.
The case highlights ongoing tensions between electoral transparency and administrative process, with the Supreme Court now seeking concrete proof from the Election Commission that its revision exercise in Bihar was thorough, lawful, and beyond reproach.
