The Election Commission told the Supreme Court it is working under “sharp political hostility” where nearly every decision faces challenges, while defending its Bihar voter roll revision. The SC has directed greater transparency, including publishing deleted voter names with reasons.
New Delhi: On August 14, the Election Commission of India (ECI) told the Supreme Court on Thursday that it is currently “operating in an atmosphere of sharp political hostility” where almost every decision it makes is challenged.
The poll panel defended its decision to carry out a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in poll-bound Bihar, saying it had full legal authority to do so.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said it prima facie agreed that the ECI has the power to conduct such an exercise but emphasised that the process must be carried out in a fair and reasonable manner.
Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing the ECI, told the court,
“The ECI is at present operating in an atmosphere of sharp political hostility where hardly any of its decisions are not contested. However, it has enough reservoir of power to make certain decisions including conducting the special intensive revision.”
He added that the Commission was
“caught between the struggle of political parties”
who often change their views on EVMs based on election results — calling them “bad” when they lose and “good” when they win.
Dwivedi clarified,
“Not my contention that ECI is omnipotent to do whatever it likes. Not my contention that ECI is omnipotent to do whatever it likes. I don’t assume that high pedestal. But, ECI has a reservoir of power under Article 324 and provisions of the Representation of Peoples Act.”
He stressed that the ECI’s role is guided by law, not political opinions, stating,
“About perception, we can’t do anything. Political parties will have their own necessities to project a perception to win an election.”
Referring to allegations presented in court, Dwivedi remarked,
“Please see, what we are doing and what havoc has been portrayed. Some counsel tried to bring in some melodrama to project some individuals without affidavits. We don’t know who they were, or from where they came. Your lordships were told they were shown ‘dead’.”
In response, Justice Kant noted that the bench had already set aside that “scene” and would go by the record.
Dwivedi explained that out of 7.24 crore forms submitted by electors in Bihar, around 5 crore names had been scrutinised.
He suggested that if the petitions challenging the June 24 decision to conduct the SIR were heard after 15 days, the ECI could present more accurate figures.
The bench indicated it was willing to fully examine the matter but questioned why the names of deleted voters were not disclosed along with reasons.
It observed that revealing such details would improve transparency and trust in the electoral process.
The judges said,
“If you bring it into the public domain, the narrative disappears,”
and directed the ECI to publish the names of around 65 lakh voters whose names were on previous rolls but were missing from the draft roll issued on August 1.
At the start of the hearing, Dwivedi offered to fix errors flagged by the petitioners, saying, “happily rectify” the “mistake” regarding people wrongly marked as dead. He criticised the petitioners’ portrayal of Bihar, saying,
“Petitioner’s have tried to project Bihar as a poor state, nothing digital, all flooded and no certificates available as if it is living in the dark ages.”
He praised the state’s historical significance, noting that Bihar gave India its first President and is a “land of enlightenment.” Justice Bagchi added that it was also the “birthplace of democracy.”
The court acknowledged that rural areas of the state still face difficulties in administrative work.
Directing a solution, the bench asked that people whose names were removed from the list be allowed to reclaim their vote by approaching election officials with Aadhaar cards as proof, calling Aadhaar a “statute approved proof of identity.”
The court further ordered the ECI to publish the list of voters who have died, migrated, or shifted to other constituencies, along with reasons, at panchayat offices and district returning officer offices.
The bench also instructed that these lists be widely publicised through newspapers (both English and vernacular), TV, and radio, so people know where to find them.
Additionally, the court directed that the deleted voters’ list be uploaded in soft copy on district election officer websites and social media handles, and made searchable by Election Photo Identity Card (EPIC) number. The ECI must file a compliance report by August 22.
Read More Reports On Bihar Voter List Row
