The Supreme Court on Monday asked the Election Commission to reply by November 5 regarding the alleged deletion of 3 crore voters in Maharashtra. The bench refused to stop the November 6 publication of the final voter list. Judges said, "Don't worry. You are a whistleblower. We will see."
Election authorities must reply before November 5, while judges leave the November 6 publication schedule unchanged and say document deadlines may be extended if needed
The Supreme Court on Monday sought responses from the Election Commission, Centre and the Maharashtra chief electoral officer on a petition that alleged an estimated 3 crore of the western state's 9 crore voters had been excluded during the ongoing SIR.
The bench, headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, however, refused to pass interim directions restraining the poll panel from publishing the final voter list on November 6.
It posted the next hearing to November 5 -- just a day before the scheduled publication of the rolls -- by when the commission is expected to respond.
Chartered accountant Arun Anandagiri's petition says that not only has a third of Maharashtra's electorate been disenfranchised, but another 1.22 crore have been put under the "logical discrepancies" category.
"Don't worry. You are a whistleblower. You are before us. We will see if any order is to be passed after hearing the other side," the bench told senior advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for the petitioner.
Justice Kant said the deadlines for filing documents to prove one's eligibility would be extended, if necessary, as was done for the SIRs in Bengal and Bihar.
The petition comes at a time when the Opposition, youths and the Cockroach Janta Party have alleged illegal and deliberate disenfranchisement to help the BJP, and are agitating for chief election commissioner Gyanesh Kumar's resignation.
The apex court bench, which included Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana, made the observations after Datar pleaded for interim orders to restrain the commission from publishing the final voter list on November 6.
Datar argued that there was no need to rush through the rolls, more so in the absence of immediate elections in Maharashtra.
Anandagiri's petition has challenged the mass deletions as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. It has flagged the massive redevelopment projects in Mumbai and Pune that have forced hundreds of thousands of families to shift to temporary accommodation.
Datar told the bench that the 3,500 redevelopment plans for Mumbai and 1,500 for Pune meant that a large number of people in these cities had to be provided with alternative homes. With the relocation still pending, most had moved to temporary residences.
However, without considering this, the poll panel has declared such people as "not found" and deleted their names, he said.
Datar said the commission had bizarrely asked these deleted voters to fill out Form 6 and register themselves as fresh voters.
He argued that doing so would land these voters in legal trouble as Form 6 compels the applicant to declare they had not been on the rolls or voted before - which, in the case of a deleted voter, would be a false statement.
Datar, though, acknowledged that Delhi High Court had in a recent oral observation said the commission shall not prosecute deleted voters applying through Form 6.
"Yes, nobody will be prosecuted," Justice Kant assured Datar orally.
Vijayan relief
Kerala High Court on Monday stayed a single-judge order directing the registration of an FIR against former chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan and his kin in the CMRL bribery case.
A bench of Justice K. Natarajan and Justice Johnson John also kept in abeyance the FIRs registered by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) and the probe by the agency in the cases till further orders.
The bench admitted the appeal of Vijayan and the others against the single judge's order, saying the matter required detailed consideration. The case will be heard after four weeks.
The order came on the appeals moved by CPM veteran Vijayan, his daughter Veena T and her husband P.A. Mohamed Riyas challenging the single judge's October 9 direction to the VACB to lodge an FIR against them based on a report submitted by the ED in connection with the bribery case.
Senior advocate N. Hariharan, representing Veena and Riyas, contended that the information provided by the ED did not constitute a cognisable offence.