New Delhi [India]: The Election Commission has defended its Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls before the Supreme Court, maintaining that the exercise was authorised by law and the relevant orders were approved unanimously by all three members of the Commission.
Rejecting the allegations that Form 6 had been amended, the poll panel, in its 248-page response to the petition against the chief election commissioner (CEC), said that no changes were made to the statutory Form 6 used for voter registration.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant is scheduled to hear on Tuesday petitions against CEC Gyanesh Kumar and the decisions taken by the poll panel during the SIR.
In a counter-affidavit, the poll body sought summary dismissal of the petitions and called the allegations misconceived, which rested on a single newspaper report.
The affidavit, filed by Deputy Election Commissioner Bhanu Prakash Yeturu on behalf of the Commission said attempt to make aspersions against the Election Commission is unfortunate.
It said the affidavit itself had been approved for filing by a unanimous decision of all three members of the Commission.
The Affidavit said the three SIR orders were issued in accordance with decisions of the EC arrived at unanimously and taken in due compliance with Article 324 of the Constitution of India.
The poll body said any suggestion, observation or query raised by a commissioner while a file is being processed does not constitute a decision of the Commission.
On the Form 6 row, the EC said it unequivocally rejects the misleading contention that the statutory form had been changed.
It added that Form 6 is an application through which an eligible person seeks inclusion in the electoral rolls
According to the affidavit, the declaration attached during the SIR is a separate document provided by the SIR orders and “is not a part of Form 6.
It said the declaration used in the Bihar SIR was later replaced in the subsequent orders so that applicants could give details of themselves and their parents or grandparents from the 2002-03 rolls and avoid submitting further documents once successfully mapped.
The poll body also said that appeals filed in West Bengal against orders including electors in the rolls were filed by officers of the state chief electoral officer’s office acting as statutory authorities in line with the apex court’s orders, and that ” matters were not brought to the Commission.
Questioning the maintainability of the pleas, the Commission said, in the eyes of law, a newspaper report is not treated as evidence of the facts it narrates.
The Commission added that it has “neither released nor authorised the release of any internal note/ file to any news agency.
Citing Article 324(5) of the Constitution, which protects the CEC from removal except in the manner of a Supreme Court judge, the EC said any prayer to restrain the CEC from functioning was not maintainable.
It also rejected the petitioner’s contentions on electronic voting machines (EVMs). The EC said similar challenges had been rejected by the top court several times.
[AIR News]