New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday posted for hearing on November 4 a batch of petitions challenging the Election Commission of India's move to conduct Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar.
As the petitioner tells the court that the ECI should separately publish the list of deleted and added voters, the Supreme Court observes that the poll panel is aware of its responsibility to disclose the voter data on completion of the recently-concluded SIR.
Earlier, the Supreme Court asked the Bihar State Legal Service Authority (BSLSA) to issue directions to its district-level body for assisting voters excluded from the final electoral rolls after the Bihar Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise in filing appeals with the Election Commission of India (ECI).
To ensure free legal aid to the persons excluded from the final voters' list to file appeals against their exclusion, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, BSLSA, is to issue necessary communication to the District Legal Services Authorities to ensure the availability of paralegal volunteers and legal aid counsels who can assist the excluded persons in filing appeals.
The bench passed the order after noting that there were discrepancies in the affidavits submitted before the top court by certain individuals who claimed that they had been incorrectly excluded.
Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for ECI, disputed the veracity of the contents of the affidavit submitted by one particular individual.
Dwivedi raised an instance raised by the petitioner Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) regarding a person whose name was included in the draft list getting deleted from the final list.
He refuted the claim, saying the person was not there in the draft list as he did not submit the enumeration form, and added that a false affidavit had been filed, which amounts to perjury.
He said excluded people can file appeals, as there is still a window of five days available for them.
The bench expressed displeasure and told advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for ADR, that when a document was handed to the court, there should have been more responsibility.
The apex court also heard the arguments of political activist Yogendra Yadav.
(Except for the headline, this article has not been edited by FPJ's editorial team and auto-generated from an agency feed.)
