Gujarat Cong leaders move HC against SIR, allege violation of electoral rules

Two Congress leaders from Surat have moved the Gujarat High Court challenging the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in the state, alleging large-scale violations of rules and ''arbitrary deletion'' of voters' names. The petition, filed on February 10, has been submitted by Congress' Surat district president Vipulkumar Udhnawala and chief organiser of Congress' Seva Dal in Surat Vinod Patil. The bench, comprising Justice Bhargav Karia and Justice L S Pirzada, is expected to hear the petition in the coming days. The SIR exercise began in Gujarat on November 4 last year and ended on December 14. The Election Commission (EC) had on December 19 published the draft electoral rolls for the state, as per which the names of nearly 74 lakh voters were dropped from the draft electoral rolls after the completion of the exercise, pegging the total count of electors at 4.34 crore as against the 5.08 crore earlier. The respondents of the petition include the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) for Gujarat, the District Electoral Officer of Surat, and Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) of various assembly constituencies in Surat district. In their special civil application, the petitioners sought directions to ensure strict compliance with the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 during the SIR process initiated across Gujarat by the Election Commission through the CEO. According to the petition, the EC has undertaken an SIR of voters' lists in the state and extended the last date for filing objections under Rule 13(2) in Form-7 from January 18 to 30. The petitioners have alleged that workers of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) are filing objections in bulk in Form-7 without documentary evidence and not in the manner prescribed under the Rules. They contended that under Rule 13(2), any person from the same constituency may file a claim or objection in Form-7, and that every such claim or objection is required to be sent by post to the Registration Officer. However, the petition alleges that objections are being submitted directly to authorities in bulk, in violation of Rule 14. The plea further states that under Rules 15 and 16, the designated officer is required to maintain duplicate lists of claims and objections and exhibit one copy on the notice board of the office in the prescribed format, Form-11. The petitioners have alleged that the respondents are not maintaining or exhibiting such lists as mandated. They have also contended that under Rule 17, any claim or objection not lodged within the specified period or not in the prescribed form and manner is liable to be rejected by the Registration Officer. Despite this, the authorities are allegedly accepting objections not filed in accordance with statutory requirements and proceeding to delete voters' names. The petition alleges that names are being deleted without serving notice or giving affected voters an opportunity of being heard, as required under the Rules. It states that if the registration officer is satisfied with an objection filed in Form-7, a notice must be served and an opportunity of hearing provided before any deletion is made. Citing Rule 21A of the Registration of Electors Rules, the petitioners further submitted that before final publication of the electoral roll, the registration officer must prepare and exhibit on the notice board a list of names proposed to be deleted, along with details of the time and place at which the matter will be considered. The petition alleges that no such notices are being served. The plea also refers to the Supreme Court judgment in Lal Babu Hussein and Others vs Electoral Registration Officer and Others, stating that if a person's name appears in the draft electoral roll, there is a legal presumption that the person is an Indian citizen and the burden of proof lies on the person filing an objection under Form-7. The petitioners claimed that non-compliance with statutory provisions during the SIR process would directly affect the rights of voters in Gujarat and violate constitutional guarantees. They have stated that a notice dated January 24 was served upon the respondents seeking compliance with the rules. A representation was also submitted on January 29 by Gujarat Congress president Amit Chavda to the CEO raising similar concerns. The petition alleges that no action has been taken on these representations. The petitioners sought directions from the high court to reject all claims or objections not filed in accordance with Rules 13 and 14 of the Registration of Electors Rules and to direct the authorities to produce and exhibit lists in Form-11 as prescribed. They have also sought action under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and sections 216 and 217 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) against persons allegedly filing false objections. The petitioners also prayed for a stay on the SIR process in Gujarat pending admission and final disposal of the case.