The Supreme Court has directed the Election Commission to explain why Assam voters were exempted from providing documentary proof during electoral roll revision, a requirement elsewhere. This exemption, despite concerns about illegal migrants, has been questioned. Separately, the court ruled that voting rights for persecuted minorities under the CAA can only be considered after citizenship is granted.
NEW DELHI: Supreme Court Tuesday asked Election Commission to respond to a PIL questioning its decision to exempt Assam voters from giving documentary proof along with enumeration forms during SIR – which was mandatory in other states – even though the northeastern state has a large population of illegal Bangladeshi migrants.Appearing for petitioner Mrinal K Choudhury, senior advocate Vijay Hansaria told a bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi that EC, in its Nov 17 notification, had said Assam’s electoral rolls were being revised without requirement of any documents or enumeration forms, contrary to the procedure adopted for the pan-India special intensive revision of rolls.SC said it would seek EC’s response on why such an exception was made for Assam and what the circumstances requiring such exemptions were. It asked the poll panel to file its response by Dec 16, the next date of hearing.The petitioner said, “EC in an arbitrary manner directed that electoral roll for Assam will be revised only by way of Special Revision and not by way of SIR even though there is no difference in the ground realities between Assam and 12 other states where SIR is being conducted.” On another PIL seeking interim inclusion of people from minority communities, who were persecuted in neighbouring countries and entered India under Citizenship (Amendment) Act, on the voters’ list of West Bengal, the bench said the question of right to vote would arise only after they were accorded citizenship. Senior advocate Karuna Nundy said the applications had been pending for a long time and if they were not decided expeditiously, these people, estimated to be 50,000, would lose out on voting in the Bengal assembly elections. The bench said it would not be legal to grant any interim right to vote. At best, the court could ask govt to expedite scrutiny of their applications, it said, and sought responses from Centre and EC. It requested the attorney general or the solicitor general to assist the court in the matter on Dec 17, the next date of hearing.
