New Delhi: The atmosphere became heated as soon as the hearing regarding Special Voter List Revision (SIR) started in the Supreme Court on Monday. During the hearing of petitions filed against SIR, which is being implemented in many states starting from Bihar, senior lawyer Prashant Bhushan described it to the court as a ‘very serious issue’. He claimed that the notices sent to voters in Bihar were issued from the central level, which raises questions on the entire process.
On this argument of Prashant Bhushan, Chief Justice (CJI) Surya Kant took a tough stand and clearly said that the court cannot judge any constitutional process only on the basis of news published in newspapers. During this debate, there was a heated argument between the lawyers appearing for the Election Commission, the Center and various states, which deepened the ongoing controversy regarding SIR.
What allegations did Prashant Bhushan make?
During the hearing, Prashant Bhushan said that a responsible political leader told him that centralized notices have been issued in Bihar. These have digital signatures of ERO (Electoral Registration Officer). According to Prashant Bhushan, this shows that the process is being conducted from somewhere else. Bhushan urged the court to seek clarification from the Election Commission on this. He said that if lakhs of notices have been issued from a central place, then it raises serious constitutional questions.
Reaction of Supreme Court and Election Commission
The Chief Justice clarified that the court cannot seek answers from the Commission on the basis of newspaper reports. CJI said that journalists also have their own sources and the news can sometimes be completely true and sometimes partially wrong. Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the Election Commission, said that it is wrong to place newspaper news in the court without verification. The Commission asked Bhushan to file an affidavit, so that the reply could be given after examining the facts.
The CJI asked the Election Commission to present its stand only as an overview in the next hearing.
Why was it said “Its very serious issue”?
Prashant Bhushan again stressed that the matter is serious because if notices are being sent from the central level, it indicates that something unusual is happening at the central ERO level. According to him, this may affect the fairness and transparency of the voter list. However, the CJI bluntly said that the court cannot start investigation on the basis of media reports.
What is SIR and why is it in controversy?
Arguments related to Tamil Nadu and Assam
Senior advocate Aditya Sondhi, giving the example of Tamil Nadu, said that tribal and migrant communities live in many districts there, who go out of the state for work and return back. In such a situation, the current process of SIR can indirectly affect these communities. Sondhi argued that if a process is apparently neutral, but has an impact on weaker sections, then it may be a violation of Article 14.
Major questions raised regarding SIR
- Were the notices really issued from the central level?
- Has the role of verification weakened at the local level?
- Is there a danger of the names of migrant and tribal communities being removed?
- Is the process in accordance with Article 14 of the Constitution?
