New Delhi: An important hearing was held in the Supreme Court on Tuesday on petitions challenging the validity of the Voter Verification (SIR) process going on in many states including Bihar. During this time, there was a stir inside the court when lawyer Prashant Bhushan made a sharp comment on the Election Commission and said that today a large number of people in the country are seeing the Election Commission as an autocrat. On this comment of Bhushan, Chief Justice (CJI) Surya Kant immediately intervened and asked him to exercise restraint.
CJI Surya Kant said in strict but balanced lines, please do not make such broad comments, please limit yourself to your views. This stance of the court clearly indicates that the hearing will be limited only to the legal scope and facts recorded in the petitions, and not to the general assessment of the institutions. This was the reason why today’s hearing was important in many ways. Because it also indicated the initial inclination of the judiciary on the SIR controversy.
On which issue is the hearing going on?
The Supreme Court bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard petitions claiming that the SIR process is being conducted by the Election Commission in a “prompt, extensive and opaque manner”. The petitioners say that this method of large-scale amendment in the voter list has been adopted for the first time.
Many senior lawyers including Bhushan demanded from the court that the current method of SIR should be investigated and the process should be made transparent.
Singhvi’s arguments – Today there is X system, tomorrow Y, then Z… how will this work?
Senior lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the SIR is being run in a “people-based” manner, while the amendment of the voter list should be a process based on individual review. He said that documentary standards are changing frequently-
Before June there was Such changes influence voters.
Justice Bagchi asked whether the SIR should be limited only to the reasons given in Rule 25, or should the Commission also have some discretion?
Prashant Bhushan’s allegations and court’s reaction
Prashant Bhushan said that SIR is being run so quickly and on such a large scale that there is immense pressure at the field level. he claimed-
- “30 BLOs committed suicide”
- “BLOs have to reach every house”
- “The names of migrant workers may be removed”.
- “No transparency – data is not being made public.”
CJI immediately interrupted these statements and said, please limit yourself to the petition. Do not make blanket comments. The court indicated that it will hear only what is recorded in the petitions and not what is added to the courtroom arguments.
The debate on SIR: with many layers
- Arguments calling the SIR process “rushed and opaque”
- Election Commission claims – “This is a routine amendment”.
- Allegation of frequent changing of documents.
- Serious questions on the workload of BLOs.
- Concern about the rights of migrant voters.
Next hearing December 4 – what can happen next?
Today’s hearing has been completed and the Supreme Court has now fixed December 4 as the date of the next hearing. During this, the court will see what is the legal framework of the SIR process and whether it is running as per the rules. According to legal experts, the court’s upcoming comments may decide the direction of this entire dispute – whether there is a direction to improve the process or the situation should be kept as it is.
