Last Updated:
The Supreme Court rebuked petitioners challenging the Bihar SIR, noting they had not assisted a single voter. This came after the Election Commission’s submission in the court.
The Supreme Court of India (PTI)
The Supreme Court on Friday expressed sharp disapproval of the conduct of political parties and petitioners challenging the Election Commission’s (EC) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, under which nearly 65 lakh names were deleted from the draft list.
Recommended Stories
This came after the poll body alleged that the petitioners were complaining, but not assisting those who wanted to file claims and objections.
“Those who are complaining have not helped a single person to file claims and objections,” the poll body told the court.
“We are going door-to-door, they are just complaining,” it said.
A bench led by Justice Sanjiv Khanna said it was “surprised by the inaction” of political parties, noting that despite 1.6 lakh Booth Level Agents (BLAs) being appointed by 12 recognised parties, only two objections had been filed so far.
“After appointing BLAs, what are they doing?” the bench remarked, stressing that parties must assist voters in filing claims and objections.
The court repeatedly questioned petitioners over their lack of proactive steps.
“Why are political parties silent?” Justice Khanna asked, observing that the voter was often more vigilant than political representatives.
It pointed out that petitioners had come to court without providing concrete data on how many voters were actually unable to file objections.
“Those who are complaining have not filed even a single objection,” the bench told advocates.
When civil society lawyers highlighted that BLOs were not accepting Aadhaar alone and were insisting on additional documents, the court noted that such issues could be clarified by the Election Commission.
“The entire exercise has to be voter-friendly. Let them first submit forms with Aadhaar and whatever documents they have. We will ensure objections are considered,” the bench said.
The judges also dismissed arguments that only Form 6 was being insisted upon, holding that while Form 6 was the prescribed method, the real responsibility lay with parties ensuring their BLAs help voters.
“We cannot understand the distance between people and local political persons,” Justice Khanna said, reminding that the responsibility to protect voters’ rights was shared.
In its order, the court directed the Bihar Chief Electoral Officer to issue notices to the heads of all 12 recognised political parties, impleading them as respondents, and asked them to file status reports on the efforts of their BLAs.
It clarified that voters can file claims online or physically with Aadhaar or any of the 11 prescribed documents, BLOs must acknowledge physical submissions, BLAs must facilitate voters in filing objections before the September 1 deadline.
The bench, however, declined to extend the timeline, saying, “Today, we are not extending. Let’s see how our order complies with.”
The matter will be taken up again on September 8.
ALSO READ |Â Supreme Court Says No To Altering Bihar SIR Timeline
About the Author
Vani Mehrotra is the Deputy News Editor at News18.com. She has nearly 10 years of experience in both national and international news and has previously worked on multiple desks.
Vani Mehrotra is the Deputy News Editor at News18.com. She has nearly 10 years of experience in both national and international news and has previously worked on multiple desks.
Loading comments…
Read More
 "6,000 bodies on railway station: After 3 rounds of truce talks, Ukraine struggles to name soldiers it has lost in war")
