Bihar Special Intensive Revision (SIR) Case- Supreme Court Hearing-Live Updates

J Bagchi: They have not undone earlier rolls. They pre-suppose existence of 2003 roll. 2003 is taken as a milestone

Gopal S: 'in such manner as deemed fit' means...does sub-section (3) deal with granting of power to ECI? can it undertake that kind of mammoth exercise to wipe back to 2003? this section does not permit EC to do that. does the law permit them to embark on that exercise? we are not just challenging the procedure. we are challenging since inception. they could never do this! it's never been done. It's the first time in history. if this is permitted to happen, God knows where it will end

J Kant: if this can never be done, then sub-section (3) will become redundant

J Bagchi: take your argument constituency wise.

J Kant: Whatever qualification required, done by proviso

Gopal S: Act does not talk of special intensive revision. The word in the Rules is 'afresh' - that means preparation, not revision. Electoral rolls once prescribed, always prescribed

J Bagchi: maybe 'intensive' was added as an adjective based on 'manner as deemed fit'.

Gopal S: Non-obstante permits over-riding but not with regard to preparation [of rolls]. Rules say nothing about...

J Bagchi: Preparation and summary revisions are qualified by the word 'prescribed manner. Sub-section 3 overrides sub-section 2, in respect of time and place. It's upto ECI 'where' it's going to do. 'In manner which it deems fit' hints at timing (when it will do)...totally in ECI domain how, when they will do special revision. We would like your point on the word 'prescribed'. When the primary legislation says 'in such manner as deemed it' but the subordinate legislation does not..., will it give a residual discretion to ECI to dovetail the procedure not completely in ignorance of rules but some more additives than what the rules prescribe to deal with peculiar requirement of a special revision?

Gopal S: These Acts have kept our democracy intact. They are not looking at the citizenship issue, so I am not on that. I will distance myself from Mr Sibal here. They (ECI) have en masse excluded...voting is an integral right available to me. India prides itself of being the largest democracy. Is this the way the custodian will trifle with us? ECI is going to be so [...]? Who allowed it to do this?

Gopal S: S14 defines constituency and qualifying date...S.16 provides for disqualification for registration in an electoral roll...see S.16(2) - 'the name of any person who becomes so disqualified After registration shall forthwith be struck off the roll...' Admittedly, the 65 lakh people has not been disqualified on any of these grounds. If it's not on that, sub-clause (2) does not kick in. If that does not kick in, I could not have been thrown off the roll - Parliament says.

Gopal S: Please come to S.62 (right to vote). No person who is not, and except as expressly provided by this Act, every person who is entered in electoral roll, shall be entitled to vote...The minute my name is entered in a roll, I am statutorily entitled. This right can rise to a constitutional right. They (ECI) came up with a document that is figment of their imagination and shoved it on 8 crore people saying start supplying (documents). Even if I am in jail, I will not be thrown off electoral roll. Parliament secured this right. The 1950 Act makes the entire procedure so strict that if you want to remove me, you have to first initiate and conduct an inquiry.

Gopal S: Constitution entitles me to be registered as a voter. Electoral rolls are subject to only the disqualification provided under Constitution and what the law may provide. Disqualification deals with residence...Please see Representation of People Act, 1951 - section 2(e), which defines 'elector'.

Gopal S: They (ECI) are commencing process of West Bengal also, without consultation. Notice has been received, I independently appear for the state. I appear for main petitioner-ADR, it has 5 voters as well. There are 4 articles related to electoral rolls, which have not been read so far. The entitlement to be on electoral roll is a sacrosanct one. I'll show both 1950 and 1951 Acts.

Singhvi: Nobody challenging ECI power to delete. But it must follow procedure, its own procedure. (reads) 'No suo motu deletion shall be done in an election year...' It can be done in special circumstances after obtaining approval of...see the press note - this same thing happened in 2004. Arunachal and Maharashtra were exempted, while they went on for other states, because they [elections] were round the corner. This (Bihar SIR) is the one time wonder when ECI is not following its own rules! You can't have a time-squeeze for such an important activity. We are seeking a stay.

Singhvi concludes.

Singhvi: there are meticulous rules about deletion - they have not followed the procedure. First category is dead people - there are cases where 'dead' people are coming forth saying they are not dead (like 2 produced yesterday). This is in law and in fact a deletion without following any process, any principle of natural justice.