Lately, the Supreme Court’s intervention in high-profile cases does not necessarily arouse confidence and reassurance that wrongs may be righted. It happened when the apex court suo motu took up the rape and murder case of Abhaya in the RG Kar College and Hospital, Kolkata. The victim’s parents are still crying for justice and have alleged delay and dilution of the case. The SC verdict on the Ayodhya Ram temple dispute likewise was mired in controversy.
Similarly, its prolonged scrutiny of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls could not stop the deletion of a record and unprecedented number of 130 million voters. It appears that the CJI-Bench could not or did not go deep into the alleged colossal tampering of laws and the constitutionally approved mechanism of electoral roll revision.
As a result, it virtually gave ECI the permission slip to rob millions of Indian citizens of their voting rights. The country’s image as a robust democracy, of which elections are the most crucial component, has been tarnished, as also the rights of legitimate citizens as voters. It is for this reason that the CJI-Bench’s ruling on 29 September to take up next week a petition questioning the functioning of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar and seeking to declare the nationwide SIR illegal is being viewed with doubts and feelings of apprehension. The petition comes days after The Indian Express reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had recorded objections at least 14 times over the past 10 months to decisions and orders concerning the SIR of electoral rolls.
The ECI, however, said the letters sent by Sandhu and Joshi to the Cabinet Secretary concerned an officer on deputation and were not related to policy or IT division matters. Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for a petitioner, said the purpose of having a multi-member Commission was, as the statute says, that it has to be either a unanimous decision or by majority. But the way the ECI has functioned has cast serious doubt about the legal validity of the entire exercise.
At this stage, an open letter by former Union minister and BJP leader, who is also former Union Home Secretary, RK Singh IAS (Retd), questioning the poll panel’s functioning has cast dark shadows on taking the matter to the SC instead of first lodging an FIR against the CEC.
In his open letter, he has called the ECI actions under Gyanesh Kumar a violation of electoral law and procedure, centralisation of electoral power and denial of natural justice through arbitrary procedures and barriers. The former Union Minister, who was in the Modi cabinet, questioned the legality of the SIR across the country. He contends that as per Section 21 of the Representation of the People’s Act, 1950, a revision is to be undertaken only in special cases, for reasons to be recorded in writing in each case, and that too, only in a constituency or part of a constituency. As such, an order for intensive revision for the whole country was illegal. An exception allowed for special cases cannot become the rule. The Supreme Court order upholding the general SIR was wrong, Singh wrote. This indeed raises deep concerns about the apex court’s intervention in the case. He further argues that the revised electoral rolls had been used in elections despite appeals against the exclusion of names remaining unresolved. Where the appeals were still pending, the original electoral roll, which was valid on the date of notification, was to be used.
Contrary to this, the new roll with deletions was used during the elections which was illegal. Again, citing Section 22 of the Act, he said the electoral registration officer must conduct an inquiry and give the voter an opportunity to be heard before removing a name. But the CEC presided over the removal of the names of all the voters who had been listed by the ERO’s after 2003 without any enquiry or show-cause notices to the registered voters. This was blatantly illegal. Singh’s contentions are strengthened by the expose of the letter written by the ERO of Maharashtra, which states that the state’s election apparatus could not access or rectify erroneous voter list data that was showing on the ECI rolls.
There are protests on the streets demanding the removal and arrest of Gyanesh and social media is replete with posts expressing concern that cast doubt on the apex court and stress that the need of the hour is to start prosecuting the CEC under relevant laws. The fears are not misplaced, given the erosion of people’s faith in the judiciary. The Supreme Court’s rulings in recent past have done nothing to ease those fears, especially concerning electoral rolls.