Top News

Questions that have been arising for a long time regarding the process of removing names from the voter list have now directly reached the Supreme Court of the country (Election Commission Response). It has now become the priority of the court to know what is the difference between the reasons given on paper and the ground reality.

Supreme Court Regarding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), the Election Commission has put a strong question to the Election Commission and asked whether the names of voters have been removed from the voter list on the basis of ‘doubtful citizenship’ (Election Commission Response), and if this has happened, then what is its number. The court made it clear that the information revealed so far does not give a clear answer to this question.

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said during the hearing that till now the Election Commission has been giving only three reasons—death, duplication and migration—for removing names from the voter list. In such a situation, it is important to be clear whether ‘doubtful citizenship’ is a separate category or not.

We need ground truth, not paper answers.

The court told the senior advocate appearing for the Election Commission that it does not just want a formal reply but wants to understand how the process of name removal was actually adopted (Election Commission Response). The bench asked – Was anyone’s name removed on the basis of doubt? On this, the Election Commission said that detailed information on this point will be informed to the court.

Who has the right to decide citizenship?

During the hearing, the question also arose as to who has the right to decide citizenship. On behalf of the Election Commission, it was said that the scope of the Commission is limited only to voter registration. It does not decide whether a person is eligible to reside in the country or not, but only sees whether he is eligible to become a voter or not.

Emphasis on giving opportunity to affected voters

The Supreme Court also directed that the information about those whose names have been removed from the draft voter list after the SIR process in Kerala should be made public. The court said that those whose names have been removed (Election Commission Response) should get full opportunity to lodge objections. Besides, it has also been asked to seriously consider extending the time limit for objection by two weeks.

At present, the court is waiting for the detailed reply of the Election Commission in this entire matter. Now the eyes are on whether the Commission will be able to clarify whether any basis of ‘doubtful citizenship’ was adopted in removing the name or not.