Person born in India has right to remain on electoral roll, vote: Supreme Court | India News – The Times of India

NEW DELHI: In what could give a political handle to TMC, SC on Monday observed a person born in India has the right to be on electoral roll and the right to vote to elect a government. A part of the bench led by CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi said, “Somewhere we are getting blinded by the dust and fury of an impending election. Right to remain on the roll and the right to vote in the country where you are born is something which is not only constitutional but also sentimental. It is the biggest expression of nationality and patriotism that you are in a participatory process to elect a democratic government. This is something we need to seriously think about.” Justice Bagchi also said original SIR did not contemplate scrutinising those in 2002 rolls

The judge did not indicate whether a person born to illegal migrants in India also would have, like one born to citizens, the right to vote. The bench, however, turned down the plea for allowing those who were found eligible by appellate tribunals to vote. Senior advocate DS Naidu, appearing for Election Commission, said there is nothing unusual about SIR in West Bengal as the deletion rate is on a par with data on percentage of voter deletion from electoral rolls of other states. The debate arose after senior advocate Rauf Rahim pleaded that those found eligible by appellate tribunals should be allowed to vote despite the freezing of the electoral roll. Justice Bagchi said, “We are not bothered about Bengal standing out or being part of a common theme of SIR. But logical discrepancy has not been a category in other states. There is a facility for hearing in appropriate cases during scrutiny which was not given during scrutiny by judicial officers, mainly because of the enormous workload and the proximity of elections.” Justice Bagchi said that if in a constituency, there is deletion of 10% of voters, but the victory margin is 15% or so, then the election result would appear to be in order. “However, if in a constituency, the victory margin is 2% and the deletion is 10%, then we will consider such cases,” he said. “If one considers EC’s original SOP on SIR, then there was no question of touching those who figured in the 2002 voter list. But now you have scrutinised those cases where the identity filled in the enumeration form did not match with the names in the 2002 voter list. That is why we exercised extraordinary powers and pressed into service judicial officers to scrutinise the enormous task of examining claims and objections and accompanying documents. “We cannot hurry up the process,” he said, adding that this was the reason an elaborate appellate forum was created by SC, which wanted to ensure a fair process, without intending to inflate or deflate the voter list. Over 34 lakh appeals have been filed so far. When Naidu said that failure of the state to depute adequate numbers of high-ranked officials for scrutiny resulted in the delay, Justice Bagchi said, “It is not a fight between state and EC. It is not a blame game. It is a question of voters being sandwiched between constitutional entities. From EC’s point of view, it has put its best foot forward. The state is circumspect. In such a situation, the purpose of the court is that of enabler and not to determine who is right and who is wrong.“ CJI Surya Kant ended the debate by saying there is no need for any academic exercise at present. In its order, the bench said, “We will not entertain any plea for inclusion prior to adjudication on appeals. Let the tribunals decide the appeals, and we will determine the future course of action.” It asked the petitioner to approach the tribunal and seek an out-of-turn hearing. The 19 appellate tribunals started functioning at full-strength on Monday. SC also asked EC and the state to continue providing security through state police and Central Armed Police Forces to WB judicial officers who took part in SIR work. “Their security cover will not be withdrawn without prior permission from the SC,” the bench said, adding that it might be beefed up after assessment of security threats.