In the Supreme Court hearing on Bihar Voter List Special Intensive Revision (SIR), Justice said that the option of 11 documents is ‘voter-friendly’. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi termed it as ‘Anti-Voter’ and cited the 1995 Lal Babu Judgment.
Supreme Court Bihar Voter List: The Supreme Court disagreed with the argument that raised the investigation of documents to update the voter list under the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Bihar. A bench of Justices Suryakant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said that earlier where 7 documents were valid in the Samri Revision, the number has been increased to 11 in the SIR, which is a voter-friendly step.
Justice Bagchi said during the hearing that we understand your Aadhaar Exclusion logic but 11 documents are in favor of the voter. It becomes easy to prove citizenship in such a document choice. Justice Suryakant also agreed that if all 11 documents are sought then it is an anti-voter but if only one is asked, it is not a problem.
Also read: CJI BR Gawai made a big statement on the order to remove stray dogs from Delhi-NCR, said- I ..
Abhishek Manu Singhvi’s argument: difficulty in rural and poor areas
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi said that this process is exclusively as most people do not have so many documents in the rural, flood -affected and poverty -struggle areas of Bihar. He said that if there is no land then options 5, 6, 7 finish. Passport is only 1-2% of people, ie about 36 lakh people. Residence certificate is also barely available. Justice Suryakant commented on this and said that do not project Bihar like this. Maximum IAS, IPS, IFS officers come out from here, which is possible only when the youth population is motivated.
Also read: DGCA notice to Indigol: 1700 pilots’ training in training revealed
Diya Singhvi argued by citing Lal Babu Judgment
Singhvi, citing the 1995 Lal Babu Judgment, said that it is necessary to give enough evidence to remove the name of any voter and to give him a chance to present his side. He clarified that he is not challenging the rules of removing the names of the Election Commission, but this process is against the Principle of Natural Justice.
Shankaranarayanan argued Bihar voter list disturbances on behalf of ADR
Senior advocate Gopal Shankaranarayanan on behalf of the petitioner Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) said that once the name of the voter is in the voter list, the voter’s living on it is a statutory right and this right is sacred.