New Delhi: The Election Commission of India (ECI) on July 22 filed an affidavit before Supreme Court in compliance with the court’s directive issued on July 10 during the hearing on ECI’s ongoing voter revision drive in Bihar.
A bench of the apex court while hearing the matter on July 10 had instructed the ECI to file an affidavit before the court by July 21. Defending the revision exercise in the poll bound state, the Commission asserted that the exercise is being carried out to ensure the integrity of the electoral rolls.
In the affidavit submitted to SC, the Commission informed that special attention is being given to marginalised and vulnerable communities during the drive. It noted that over 90% of electors had already submitted enumeration forms.
Significantly, the ECI defended the exclusion of Aadhaar from the list of documents used in the revision exercise, stating that it does not serve as proof of citizenship. The Commission however clarified that the list of acceptable documents was indicative and not exhaustive.
The Commission underscored that over 1.5 lakh Booth Level Agents (BLAs) are working alongside Booth Level Officers (BLOs) to reach out to all eligible voters. It noted that all political parties are also involved actively in the process.
“This is the first time that all political parties have been involved at such a scale in an intensive revision exercise, with over 1.5 lakh BLAs working alongside BLOs to reach out to every eligible elector,” said the affidavit.
Aadhar, Voter ID, Ration Card not reliable documents for inclusion in electoral roll
In terms of voter ID or the Electoral Photo Identity Card (EPIC), the Commission informed the court that EPIC cannot be accepted as a document for inclusion in the electoral roll during the ongoing revision drive since the process is a fresh revision of the electoral rolls.
“The EPIC cards are prepared on the basis of electoral rolls. Since the electoral roll, itself, is being revised, the production of EPIC Cards will make the whole exercise futile. The conceptual and procedural integrity of a de-novo revision would stand undermined if EPICs, which are merely reflective of prior entries, are used to validate entries in a roll that is required to be constructed anew. The EPIC, being a by-product of an earlier electoral roll, cannot substitute the verification process mandated for fresh preparation and reliance solely on the EPIC for inclusion or automatic continuance would be contrary to both the scheme and purpose of a fresh revision exercise,” said the ECI affidavit as reported by Live Law.
On use of Aadhaar as a valid document for inclusion in the electoral roll, the ECI stated that Aadhaar does not establish citizenship, and is merely proof of identity. It cited both statutory provisions and case law to support this position.
The Commission in its affidavit referred to Section 9 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016, which explicitly provides that possession of an Aadhaar number does not confer citizenship.
The affidavit stated that Aadhaar can be used to supplement other documents to prove eligibility. “However, this is not to say that Aadhaar cannot be used to supplement other documents to prove eligibility. It is for this reason that the list is indicative and not exhaustive,” reads the affidavit.
On exclusion of ration cards from the list of acceptable documents during the ongoing drive, the ECI relied on a press release from the Union Government stating that it has removed 5 Crore fake ration cards.
“That it is submitted that given the widespread existence of fake ration cards, it has not been prescribed within a list of 11 documents to be relied upon for screening eligibility under Article 326,” stated the affidavit.
The Commission emphasised that the ERO/AERO is obligated to consider all documents including ration cards which are presented for proof of eligibility.
“Decision to accept or reject the documents is dependent on the satisfaction of the ERO/AERO as per sec 22, and other provision of the RP Act, 1950 and rule 21(A) and other rules of the RER, 1960, and such decisions will be taken on a case-to-case basis and in accordance with procedure prescribed by law,” reads the submission made by the Commission.
The Commission further contended that many of the figures cited by the petitioners were outdated and not representative of the current scenario. “The full reports have not been annexed and the Petitioners have deliberately suppressed the fact that these reports do not reflect contemporary data,” it said.
ECI’s affidavit further alleged that the petitioners, a few among whom are Member of Parliament and legislative assemblies did not disclose that the political parties represented by them were actively participating in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) drive by appointing BLAs.
“These facts were within the Petitioners’ knowledge but were not disclosed before this Court,” alleged the ECI’s affidavit.
It added that “All parties have appreciated the necessity and correctness of the exercise and are cooperating to ensure its timely completion.
Petitions challenging the ECI’s voter revision drive were filed by leaders of opposition parties including Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) MP Manoj Jha, Trinamool Congress lawmaker Mahua Moitra, and former MLA of Bihar Mujahid Alam.
Other than political leaders, Yogendra Yadav’s Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) were also among the petitioners. The apex court on July 10 allowed the ECI to continue with its exercise of conducting intensive revision of electoral rolls.
A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi without staying the SIR process asked the ECI to consider allowing Aadhaar, ration cards, and electoral photo identity cards as admissible documents to prove voter identity during the SIR of electoral rolls being undertaken in Bihar.
“We are of the prima facie opinion that in the interest of justice, the Election Commission will also include documents like Aadhaar, Ration Card, Voter ID card, etc.. It is for the ECI to decide whether it wants to accept the documents or not, and if it does not, then provide reasons for its decision, which shall be sufficient to satisfy the petitioners. Meanwhile, petitioners are not pressing for an interim stay,” the bench stated in its order.
