If anyone can provide a list of voters who have not received deletion orders, the Election Commission would be directed to ensure these individuals are informed, said Justice Surya Kant during the hearing of the Bihar Special Intensive Revision (SIR) case.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi sought clarity, questioning whether the additional names in the final voter list were those of deleted voters or new registrants.
The two judge bench of the Supreme Court was hearing arguments about the discrepancies in the electoral roll after the SIR exercise.
The Court noted that the ECI claims all deleted voters were informed. However, petitioners can provide affidavits or examples to show otherwise.
The Bench observed that the issue should not turn into a “roving inquiry.” However, if prima facie violations are shown, the Court can issue appropriate directions.
The ECI defended the SIR exercise. It argued that the claims were mostly raised by petitioners—NGOs and political parties—based in Delhi.
Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi argued for the Election Commission. He said that the names added to the voter list were mostly new voters. Dwivedi clarified that these names were not from the previously deleted list.
Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioners, strongly criticised the SIR process. Bhushan claimed that instead of resolving issues with the electoral roll, the SIR has only made them worse.
He said that many voters had been removed without receiving notice, leaving them with no chance to appeal.
SC will hear the matter on October 9.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
