The Supreme Court on Thursday fixed November 4 for hearing on petitions challenging the Election Commission of India’s move to conduct special intensive revision (SIR) of voter lists in Bihar.
It is noteworthy that voting for the assembly elections in Bihar is to be held in two phases. Voting for the first phase will be held on November 6 and for the second phase on November 11. Whereas the results will be revealed on November 14.
However, the petitioner told the Supreme Court that the Election Commission of India should publish the list of deleted and added voters separately.
On this, the Supreme Court said that the Election Commission is aware of its responsibility to disclose voter data on completion of the recently completed SIR.
Earlier, the Supreme Court had asked the Bihar State Legal Services Authority (BSLSA) to issue directions to its district level body to assist voters left out of the final voter list after Bihar Special Intensive Revision (SIR) to file appeals before the Election Commission of India (ECI).
To ensure free legal aid to the persons excluded from the final voter list in filing appeals against their exclusion, a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, BSLSA, will issue necessary communication to the District Legal Services Authorities to ensure availability of paralegal volunteers and legal aid consultants who can assist the excluded persons in filing appeals.
The bench passed the order after noticing that there were discrepancies in the affidavits submitted in the apex court by some individuals who claimed that they were wrongly excluded from the list.
Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the Election Commission of India, questioned the veracity of the contents of the affidavit submitted by a particular person.
Dwivedi raised a case raised by petitioner Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) in which a person’s name was included in the draft list but was removed from the final list.
He refuted this claim, saying that the person was not in the draft list because he had not submitted the enumeration form. He said that a false affidavit has been filed, which is tantamount to perjury.
He said that those excluded can file appeals as five days are still available to them.
The bench expressed displeasure and told lawyer Prashant Bhushan, appearing for ADR, that when the document was handed over to the court, there should have been more responsibility. The Supreme Court also heard the arguments of political activist Yogendra Yadav.
