The Congress claimed that the Supreme Court verdict on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls contains contradictions, particularly on the issue of citizenship and voter deletions.
Senior Congress leader Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that while the SC said only the Ministry of Home Affairs can make a final determination on citizenship, the Election Commission had already deleted voters on citizenship-related grounds.
The Congress also criticised the ECI for conducting the exercise within a short timeline, alleging procedural lapses, wrongful deletions and inadequate safeguards for voters.
The Congress on Wednesday claimed that the Supreme Court verdict on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls had several contradictions and that the verdict has raised more questions than it has answered.
Talking to journalists at the party headquarters in the national capital, senior Congress leader and MP Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi said, “The issue was never about the power to conduct SIR. What was being questioned was the mode, manner, timing and style in which it was being carried out. The lack of justice and denial of rights in the manner in which SIR was being carried out was the main issue.”
Earlier on Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled that the Election Commission has the authority to conduct the SIR exercise, asserting that the poll panel did not transgress any statutory or constitutional provision. It noted that SIR has a direct connection with free and fair polls.
Dr Singhvi underlined that the SC verdict says that the final decision on citizenship cannot be taken by the Election Commission of India, but only by the competent authority, primarily the Ministry of Home Affairs. He pointed out that the ECI excluded voters on citizenship-related grounds and questioned whether this contradiction should not have come to the notice of the Supreme Court.
Referring to the apex court's verdict, Dr Singhvi said, “The court, in Para 171, states that the formal and final determination of citizenship cannot be done by the Election Commission of India. That power lies with the competent authority under the Citizenship Act, namely, the Ministry of Home Affairs. Yet, the ECI has already excluded people on the basis of citizenship.”
“If this is true, then 7.5 crore people were deleted in several states. How were they removed before their citizenship was decided by the competent authority? Isn’t this a contradiction? Shouldn’t this have been commented upon by the Supreme Court? The right of crores of people to vote was taken away by the ECI, an authority which wasn’t the competent authority. It is sad that though the SC noted it, it did not give sufficient importance to it,” said Dr Singhvi.
Dr Singhvi, who is a senior Supreme Court lawyer, said that the court itself had noted and underlined several gaps, omissions, errors and deficiencies on the part of the ECI, for which it said structural improvements and corrections through judicial intervention were required. He said the ECI’s errors and gaps were filled through petitions filed by political parties and NGOs, after which Aadhaar was added to the list of approved documents and the names of 65 lakh deleted voters were put on the website so that deletions could be challenged. He asked why the ECI had not taken these steps earlier and argued that such errors and omissions should have been mentioned more strongly by the Supreme Court.
“Paras 97 to 100 of the Supreme Court order underline several deficiencies, gaps, omissions and errors on the part of the ECI. This shows that the ECI was in error, and the gaps had to be filled through petitions filed by NGOs and political parties like ours,” he said.
The senior Congress leader further said, “All these issues arose because of an excessively constricted and telescoped timeline. The ECI conducted this exercise for crores of people within four to five months in Bihar and West Bengal. Why could the ECI not begin the SIR process a year in advance for the following year’s elections?”
“It’s unfortunate that the Supreme Court made no comments on the ECI’s shortcomings,” added Singhvi.
“The simple question the SC should have asked is: why didn’t the EC start the process a year in advance? You rushed the process in three to four months. The mistakes and shortcomings of the ECI should have evoked a stronger comment from the apex court. The court should have made the ECI accountable for its faults and shortcomings,” he said.
Dr Singhvi also criticised the ECI’s process of “putting the cart before the horse” and “closing the stables after the horses have bolted”, pointing out that the EC first removed names from the electoral rolls and the adjudication was done later. He said that between the deletion of names and adjudication, elections were held, resulting in major deprivation of voting rights, which should have evoked stronger comment from the Supreme Court.
Dr Singhvi pointed out that the SC has rightly held that Aadhaar, ration cards and other documents, except the passport, are not proof of citizenship. But, he added, the ECI excluded names on the basis of these very documents. He asked whether this does not raise questions about the fairness and validity of the elections held in West Bengal.
“The EC deletes your name first and then the final decision comes later. What is the relevance of implementing SIR in this way?” he asked.
“If Aadhaar and ration cards are not evidence of citizenship, then the court should also have noticed that crores of people were deleted and removed on the basis of these documents. None of these are evidence of citizenship, yet the ECI removed millions of people on the basis of these documents only. This should also have been commented upon by the SC,” he added.
Dr Singhvi raised another important point regarding the average success rate of appeals against voter deletion. He said, “In West Bengal, nearly 4,000 out of 6,000 appeals against voter deletions were upheld.” He asked whether a success rate of 70 to 80 per cent in such appeals would not put a big question mark on the credibility of elections. He said this is another issue that the court ought to have pondered over.
