Last Updated:
The Election Commission has given an affidavit on SIR before the bench headed by CJI Surya Kant. In this, many questions including vote theft, deliberate vote cutting, death of BLO have been answered. The Election Commission has clearly said that the allegations made in the petition are empty and have nothing to do with the facts.
Ananya Bhatnagar
There is a fight from Parliament to the streets over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the voter list. The opposition is claiming that people’s names are being deleted deliberately. Some communities are being targeted. If the matter reaches the Supreme Court. The bench headed by CJI Surya Kant is hearing this. Now the Election Commission has opened the blank slate in front of him. The Election Commission gave a detailed affidavit stating whose names are being deleted from the SIR? It was clearly said that the claims being made are not just empty, but are completely politically motivated. The Commission has placed such a mirror with the facts, which has exposed the claims of the opposition.
The Election Commission, in its affidavit, rubbished all the claims in which it was said that names of people were being deleted on a large scale in Bengal. The allegation was that a particular community, minorities, Muslims and Matua community were being targeted. This commission replied that this allegation is completely baseless and beyond evidence. We do not have any data that proves that it is having a negative impact on people of any particular religion or caste. While opening the ‘black note’, the Commission made it clear that Article 325 of the Constitution stands as a shield, which does not allow exclusion of any voter on the basis of religion, caste or gender. Testing is equal for everyone, no matter who they are.
The Election Commission has given data on how many forms have been filled across the country so far.
Opposition’s fear of ‘NRC’ and Commission’s counterattack
Opposition parties like Congress, TMC and CPM had appealed to the Supreme Court that in the name of SIR, such documents are being asked from poor and illiterate people which are meant to prove citizenship. He said that this is not a voter list amendment but an attempt to implement ‘NRC’ through the back door.
On this the Commission told the court that this is only a standard procedure to purify the electoral roll. This is not being carried out by the police, but by Booth Level Officers (BLO). Citing figures, the Commission said that forms have been given to 99.77% voters in Bengal and more than 70% people have filled them and submitted them. If there was an atmosphere of fear, how was such large participation possible?
The most sensitive aspect is related to the Matua community of Bengal and the refugees covered under CAA. The petitioners had claimed that the names of Hindus, Sikhs and other refugees whose citizenship applications are still pending are at risk of being struck off. On this the Election Commission made it clear that nothing like this is happening.
Will online applications also be considered as receipt?
The issue also arose before the Commission whether the receipt of online applications would be considered as evidence? Although the Commission clarified on the technical aspects, the opposition claims that asking for parents’ papers from people born after 1987 or 2004 could make millions of people ‘stateless’.
What is the truth about BLO’s suicide and the system?
The documents placed before the Supreme Court also mentioned allegations that 23 BLOs in Bengal had committed suicide due to heavy work pressure. The opposition had termed it a bloody process. The commission acknowledged that there were challenges, but described the process as transparent. The remaining deaths are being investigated.
Deadline extended, but questions remain
The Election Commission has made its position clear by placing a ‘black note’, but the fight is not over yet. The Commission has extended the date for submission of forms to December 11 and the final list will now come in February. Now the ball is in the court of the Supreme Court. Will the court trust this ‘letter’ of the Commission, or will it give any major order before the 2026 elections regarding the issue of lakhs of names in Bengal? At present, the Commission has made it clear that we are following rules, not politics.
