Today, On 13th October, The Supreme Court rejected a PIL seeking an SIT probe into Rahul Gandhi’s alleged vote chori. Addressing the lawyer, the bench said, “Pursue Your Remedy Wherever You Want,” refusing to entertain the public interest petition.
The Supreme Court of India heard a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a lawyer seeking a special investigation team (SIT) probe into alleged anomalies and discrepancies in voters’ lists across several elections.
The allegations were initially raised by Leader of Opposition (LoP) Rahul Gandhi.
The bench hearing the case comprises Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymala Bagchi.
During the proceedings, Justice Surya Kant remarked,
“Pursue your remedy wherever you want. Just because some representation is not…”
The petitioner’s counsel submitted that a representation regarding the discrepancies had been given to the Election Commission, but it was not considered.
In response, Justice Surya Kant observed,
“Writ Petition purportedly filed in public interest shall not be entertained. Petitioner is at liberty to pursue alternate remedies as available.”
The petition argued that these manipulations violated Articles 324, 325, and 326 of the Constitution and infringed upon Articles 14 and 21. It was emphasized that the Supreme Court has recognized the right to free and fair elections as a fundamental aspect of the Constitution’s basic structure.
The petition contended that irregularities in the electoral rolls have jeopardized the constitutional guarantee of free and fair elections. It asserted that numerous duplicate, invalid, and fictitious entries were found in the Mahadevapura Assembly constituency of the Bengaluru Central Parliamentary seat, undermining the principle of “one person, one vote.”
The submission noted that several voters were registered in multiple constituencies under the same EPIC number, while some individuals appeared multiple times in the same constituency with different identification numbers.
Specifically, in Mahadevapura, there were reported to be over 40,000 invalid voters, more than 10,000 duplicate entries, and thousands of voters sharing identical details such as house number or father’s name.
Similar discrepancies were claimed in Maharashtra, where nearly 3.9 million new voters were registered within just four months, and in Chandrapur, where around 80 voters were listed at a single unoccupied address.
The petition also referenced an FIR filed in Kalaburagi, Karnataka, after suspicious additions to the voter rolls were discovered.
Additionally, it highlighted the case of a 63-year-old woman whose name was removed against her wishes, despite her assertion that she did not request such a deletion.
The petitioner called for an independent investigation into the alleged electoral roll tampering and urged the Election Commission of India to implement binding measures that would ensure transparency, accountability, and integrity in the creation and maintenance of voter lists nationwide.
The petitioner further argued that by not publishing electoral rolls in accessible and readable formats, and by requiring citizens to manually scan documents, the Election Commission has created unnecessary obstacles to public verification. These restrictions undermine the right to informational self-determination, making citizen involvement in the cleansing of electoral rolls effectively meaningless. Additionally, it was noted that the Election Commission, as a constitutional body under Article 324, is obligated to uphold the rule of law and principles of natural justice. This includes transparently investigating credible allegations, providing well-reasoned responses, and ensuring meaningful public access to data, which constitutes a violation of its constitutional responsibilities.
The petitioner stressed that “fairplay in action” is the standard in electoral matters, as recognized in Mohinder Singh Gill. It is an established position that the provisions of the RPA, 1950 must be interpreted in a manner that supports the achievement of constitutional objectives.
Sub-clauses (3) and (4) of Section 62 of the RPA, 1950 explicitly prohibit an individual from voting in more than one constituency or more than once in the same constituency, declaring such votes void.
In this case, the petitioner contended that the serious allegations of duplicate and fictitious entries in the electoral rolls prima facie indicate that the electoral rolls were not compiled in accordance with the provisions of the RPA, 1950.
If these allegations are investigated and confirmed, they could lead to the real possibility of multiple or unlawful voting, thereby undermining the integrity of the electoral process and eroding public trust and confidence in constitutional institutions.
Case Title: Rohit Pandey v. Union of India
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
