Indian-born people have right to remain on electoral rolls and vote: Supreme Court

New Delhi: Where political leverage can be provided TMCthe SC on Monday observed that people born in India have the right to be in the electoral roll and to vote for the government. Justice Joymalya Bagchi, headed by CJI Surya Kant, said: “In some places, we are blinded by the dust and fury of the upcoming elections. The right to remain on the rolls and to vote in the country of your birth is not only constitutional but also emotional. Your participation in the election of a democratic government is the greatest expression of nationality and patriotism. This is something we need to think seriously about. ” Justice Bagchi also said that the original SIR did not contemplate review of the contents of the 2002 volume

The judge did not say whether people born to illegal immigrants in India would have the same voting rights as people born to citizens. However, the judge rejected a request to allow people the appeals court deemed eligible to vote. Senior advocate DS Naidu, appearing before the Election Commission, said there was nothing unusual about West Bengal’s SIR as the deletion rate was comparable to data on percentage of voters deleted from electoral rolls in other states. The debate was sparked after senior advocate Rauf Rahim pleaded that those deemed eligible by the appeals tribunal should still be allowed to vote despite a freeze on the electoral roll. “We are not concerned about Bengal standing out or being part of the common theme of the SIR. But the logical difference is not a category in other states. During the review period, there was a facility for hearing in appropriate cases, but the judicial officers did not provide this facility during the review period mainly because of the huge workload and the proximity of elections,” Justice Bacchi said. Judge Budge said that if 10% of voters were deleted from a constituency but the winning rate was only about 15%, then the election results would appear to be normal. “However, if in a constituency the margin of victory is 2 per cent and deletion is 10 per cent, then we will consider that,” he said. “If you consider the EC’s original SOP on the SIR, there is no doubt that those who were in the 2002 electoral list were touched. But now you have scrutinized those cases where the identities filled in the counting sheets did not match the names in the 2002 electoral list. That is why we exercise extraordinary powers and send judicial officers to review the difficult task of reviewing claims and objections and accompanying documents. “We can’t speed up the process,” he said, adding that was why the standards committee had created a carefully crafted appeals forum that wanted to ensure a fair process and not intentionally inflate or narrow the voter rolls. More than 3.4 million people have appealed so far. When Naidu said the state’s failure to field a sufficient number of senior officials for scrutiny had led to delays, Justice Bacchi said, “This is not a fight between the state and the Election Commission, nor is it a blame game. This is a matter of voters being caught between constitutional entities. From the Election Commission’s perspective, it has done its best. The state is cautious. In this case, the purpose of the courts is to be an enabler, not to determine who is right and who is wrong.” Wrong.“ CJI Surya Kant concluded the debate by saying that there was no need for any academic exercise at the moment. “We will not entertain any request for inclusion until the appeal is decided. Let the court rule on the appeal and we will determine the future course of action,” the judge said in the order. It asked the petitioners to contact the tribunal and seek an out-of-sequence hearing. The 19 appeals courts began operating at full capacity on Monday. The SC also asked the EC and the state to continue providing security through the state police and central armed police forces to the bank’s judicial officers involved in the SIR work. “Their security cover will not be withdrawn without the SC’s prior permission,” the bench said, adding that security cover may be tightened after assessing the security threat.