ADM Says 'Can't Speak English'; Uttarakhand HC Asks SEC, Chief Secy Whether He Can Effectively Hold Executive Post

A bench of Chief Justice G. Narendar and Justice Alok Mahra directed thus while hearing a matter relating to the preparation of electoral rolls under the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Registration of Electors) Rules, 1994.

Essentially, when the hearing began on July 18, the Bench noted that Vivek Rai, Additional District Magistrate and Electoral Registration Officer (ERO), Nainital, appearing in person, started his submissions in Hindi.

When queried about this, he submitted that he could only understand English and was unable to speak in English. In light of his statement, the Court observed this:

"…the State Election Commissioner and the Chief Secretary shall examine as to whether an officer of the cadre of Additional District Magistrate, who claims to have no knowledge of English or in his own words inability to convey in English, would be in a position to effectively control an Executive post?"

Briefly put, the case before the Bench involved questions about the legality of relying solely on the Family Register to determine entries in the panchayat electoral rolls.

The core issue before the Court is whether names can be validly included in the panchayat electoral rolls based solely on entries in the Family Register without any supporting documents or verification.

In the last hearing, the election commission had submitted that the process of enumeration is that the Booth Level Officer would visit the household, and one member of the family would give a list of names, who are residing in the said household and the said names would be recorded, be it one thousand, or one million, without any corroborating documents.

The same would then be entered into the provisional Electoral List, and if no objections are received, the final Electoral List would be published.

In response to this, the Court had queried what steps were being taken to verify the authenticity of the entries made in the Family Register, or as to whether any documents were collected to ascertain the veracity of the claims made with the Booth Level Officer, who was part of the enumeration program.

The officers present and the counsel for the State Election Commission stated before the court that apart from reliance on the Family Register, no other material had been considered.

To this, the Court pointed out that Rule 7 of the 1994 Rules doesn't permit reliance on the Family Register maintained under the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Maintenance of Family Register) Rules, 1970.

Instead, the bench noted that the Rules refer to the register of births and deaths and the admission register of educational institutions as valid documents for establishing residency and voter identity.

Despite this, both Rai and Monika Arya, Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Assistant Electoral Registration Officer (AERO), submitted before the bench that the only document that has been relied upon, to include names of voters, is the Family Register maintained under the 1970 Rules.

"If the sanctity of the Family Register document was of such a high degree, probably the Legislature, in its own wisdom, would have referred to the said register in the (1994 Rules), which came about after the (1970 Rules", the Court noted.

The division bench added that if this practice is being followed across the State, the legality of the exercise becomes 'questionable'.

Hence, keeping in view the gravity and the magnitude of the issue at hand, the bench directed the State Election Commissioner and the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand, to appear before the HC virtually to look into the issue pointed out by the Court, and place their stands by way of affidavits.

The matter will be heard next on July 28.