Revision of Electoral Rolls | Day 27: ECI says voter verification is not disenfranchisement, India not a ‘banana republic’
Challenge to the ECI’s Revision of Electoral Rolls in BiharJudges: Surya Kant CJI, Joymalya Bagchi J
Today, senior advocates Maninder Singh, D.S. Naidu and Advocate Ekalavya Dwivedi, appearing for the Election Commission of India (ECI) argued on the constitutional foundation of voter verification, the scope of the special intensive revision (SIR) and the maintainability of the petitions. This was the 27th day of arguments in the Bihar SIR challenge before the Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.
Last week, Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi had concluded his submissions stating that the Court should dismiss the petitions and impose a special cost on the petitioners.
Voter Verification flows from the Constitution
Singh argued that the Constitution envisages a continuous verification exercise to ensure that eligibility conditions for inclusion in the rolls are fulfilled. “Every nation has a policy,” Singh stated, adding that the conditions under Article 326 are “essential for inclusion in the electoral roll and are a continuous requirement.”
Distinguishing between Articles 325 and 326, he submitted that Article 325 does not negate the need for verification. It merely prohibits exclusion from the electoral roll on grounds of religion, race, caste or sex. “The real constitutional essentials are found in Article 326,” Singh argued. “It lays down the three conditions for entitlement to be registered in the electoral roll, and the expression ‘at any election’ means every election.”
He submitted that these constitutional conditions necessarily require scrutiny and verification at the stage of preparation and revision of the electoral rolls.Singh submitted that the Bihar exercise was not an ordinary revision exercise contemplated under Section 21 (2) of the RP Act. It was a special revision which is carried out under Section 21(3). Previously, Dwivedi had argued that the provision allows the Commission to frame its own rules as it deems fit when conducting a special revision.
No grievance, no cause of action
Naidu submitted that while the doors of constitutional courts are open, petitions should show an existing grievance. They must not be filed to “hit the headlines or make a mockery of the system,” he stated.
Naidu argued that the present petitions were camouflaged as writs of certiorari but were, in substance, prayers for a writ of prohibition. He submitted that the ECI had exercised its powers to initiate the SIR and that no deleted voter had approached the Court with any grievance. Notably, in the previous hearings, Justice Bagchi had commented that this point could benefit the ECI’s case.
Referring to the notification issued by the ECI, Naidu submitted that reasons for the SIR had been clearly enumerated. He argued that the petitioners’contention that the ECI had provided no justification for the SIR was absolutely unfounded.
Verification is not determination
Naidu relied on Article 326 to argue that entitlement to be registered in the electoral roll is a qualified right dependent on citizenship, age and absence of disqualification. “There is a difference between verification and determination… the ECI does not determine citizenship. It only verifies eligibility,” he submitted. On this point, Dwivedi had previously argued that there were no other consequences except non-inclusion in the electoral roll. The Court had inquired whether any persons were removed from the Bihar roll on grounds of non-citizenship.
Naidu further submitted that the SIR served other collateral purposes such as addressing migration, deletion of entries relating to deceased persons and weeding out absenteeism. According to him, first time enrollment necessarily requires establishment of credentials.
“In 75 years of the history of this country, there has been no allegation that elections have been stolen,” Naidu submitted, rejecting the characterisation of India as a “banana republic”. He argued that the petitions were premature and should be dismissed.
Proportionality and scope of Section 21
Advocate Ekalavya Dwivedi submitted that Article 326 is in the nature of a self-limiting constitutional provision. It contains three pre-conditions, making entitlement to registration a qualified right.
Dwivedi argued that the phrase “in such manner” used in Section 21 of the RP Act should be accorded a wide construction, as it empowers the ECI to devise mechanisms necessary for purification of electoral rolls.
He submitted that no SIR had been conducted for over 23 years and that rapid urbanisation and mass migration necessitated the exercise. According to him, the enumeration phase functioned as an initial stage of filtration and bore a direct nexus with the object of the SIR. He stated that approximately 60 to 70 lakh ineligible entries had been removed.
The Court will continue hearing arguments tomorrow.