The Election Commission of India (ECI) defended the ongoing special intensive revision (SIR) of the voter list in Bihar and told the Supreme Court that Aadhaar, voter ID card or ration card could not be accepted as evidence of voter eligibility and emphasized its constitutional right to seek evidence of citizenship. In a detailed affidavit presented on Monday evening, the Election Commission argued that the powers obtained under Article 324 of the Constitution give him full right to monitor and direct the election, including preparing the voter list.
Also read this: Bihar Special Intensive Revision: About 42 lakh voters not found at their address-State Commission
The Commission argued that this constitutional order, the right to check the voter eligibility, including the need for Indian citizenship prescribed under Article 326. The Election Commission said that not being able to prove citizenship for voter registration is not like ending anyone’s citizenship. This affidavit has come in response to the petitions filed by many opposition MPs and civil society organizations, challenging the validity, time and method of the SIR process.
Also read this: The politics of anxiety or ruling on the opposition’s democracy?
The Supreme Court agreed to check the validity of SIR on 10 July and urged that the draft list should not be finalized until further orders. The court had also asked the Election Commission to consider Aadhaar card, voter ID card and ration card as an acceptable proof of eligibility to join the voter list. The Election Commission rejected the suggestion of the apex court, but emphasized that the list of 11 documents currently being accepted is only example, not complete.
Also read this: Uproar in Parliament means waste of time and resources
The hearing of the case is scheduled on 28 July. Opposition parties and activists have alleged that this process may take away the franchise on a large scale or violate the statutory provisions. Refuting the plea of the petitioners that the Central Government is only capable of determining citizenship under the Citizenship Act, 1955, ECI argued that the interpretation is “clearly wrong” and ignores its constitutional and statutory duties.