About 47.56 lakh Delhi electors were left out of the draft rolls, and a Supreme Court plea challenges ECI declaration that asks them to enrol afresh. The applicants contend it exposes previously enrolled voters to criminal liability. The contentions are those of the applicants and no response has been recorded.
New Delhi: Voters excluded from Delhi’s draft electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) must, under the direction of the Election Commission of India (ECI), declare themselves first-time applicants and file an additional declaration to have their names restored. A Supreme Court plea challenges the ECI declaration through an application in a pending petition against the Commission. The applicants’ contentions are untested, the Court has recorded no observation and the ECI’s response is awaited [Application in the pending petition against the Election Commission of India].
RTI activist Anjali Bhardwaj and one other applicant have moved the application through Advocate Prashant Bhushan. The material available does not state the bench, the case number or the listing date.
The figures in the application
As the application puts it, about 47.56 lakh electors, or 32.78 per cent of Delhi’s pre-SIR electorate, were excluded from the draft rolls published on 31 August, and 31.59 lakh of them were classified as permanently shifted. It adds that between 31 August and 4 October only 569 Form 6 applications were disposed of, against 3,209 Form 7 objections.
ALSO READ: Rahul Gandhi’s Supreme Court Plea On SIR Seeks Audit Panel, Poll Body Records And Interim Suspension
Where the applicants say the declaration goes wrong
Previously enrolled voters who file Form 6 with a first-time enrolment declaration could, the applicants contend, face criminal liability under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 for a false declaration. They also argue that the additional SIR declaration goes beyond the statutory Form 6, was not issued under the procedure in Section 28 of the Act, and was neither gazetted nor placed before Parliament.
What they ask for
The prayers are for a separate, legally appropriate mechanism to restore excluded voters’ names without first-time enrolment declarations, a declaration that the additional SIR declaration is unenforceable, and an order that no claim be rejected solely because that declaration was not submitted.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Registry Flags 14 Defects In Rahul Gandhi’s SIR Petition, Notes Rs 220 Fee Shortfall
The question it raises
At bottom, the plea asks a question of procedure: can a requirement that goes beyond the statutory form be imposed on excluded voters without following the route the Act prescribes? The Election Commission has not yet responded and the Court has expressed no view on the contentions.
Case Details: Application in a pending petition against the Election Commission of India (case title and number not available); Supreme Court of India; filing date and listing not stated.
Appearances: Advocate Prashant Bhushan for the applicants.
![[Controversial Job Appointment] 'Unconstitutional': SC rejects Kerala Govt. Plea](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/image-5-1.png?resize=420%2C345&ssl=1)