SC refuses to seek EC's reply on media report cited by NGO on notice for voter deletion in Bihar SIR

New Delhi, Dec 16 (PTI) The Supreme Court refused to seek the Election Commission's (EC) reply on Tuesday on an NGO's plea for a direction to the poll panel to respond to a media report alleging that lakhs of pre-filled notices for deleting voters' names were centrally issued during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise in Bihar, instead by local authorities.

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said it would set a wrong precedent and asked the NGO -- Association for Democratic Reforms -- to file an affidavit instead, bringing the facts to its notice, before seeking the EC's response.

Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing the EC in the matter, objected to the reliance put by the NGO on the newspaper report and denied the allegations contained in it.

He said the EC cannot be called to the court to abruptly respond to media reports at a time when substantial hearings on the issue have taken place.

The bench said it cannot be swayed by the media report unless the issue is formally brought on record through an affidavit.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing in the court on behalf of the NGO that has challenged the constitutional validity of a June 24 EC notice to conduct the SIR exercise in Bihar, said the media report has made some very "disturbing" and "serious" allegations that norms were not followed during the SIR in Bihar.

He said lakhs of pre-filled notices seeking deletion of names were sent to the voters by the EC directly, even though under the Representation of the People Act, only the local electoral registration officer is empowered to issue such notices.

Dwivedi said if Bhushan still wishes to pursue the accusation, he should place material on record through an affidavit, and claimed that the allegation is factually incorrect as all notices were issued by district election officers.

CJI Kant told Bhushan that according to established procedures, a response from the other side can only be sought if something is formally placed before the court.

The CJI further said courts cannot direct for filing replies merely on the basis of media reports, which themselves sometimes depend on sources and may be fully or partly correct.

The bench perused the newspaper report and said the reporter has used the word "learnt", which means it was based on information provided by a source.

Dwivedi said the report did not mention from where the information was "learnt" and how it was obtained.

Bhushan maintained that the information did not emerge suddenly and he was informed earlier also about the irregularities by a "responsible" political leader from Bihar.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing in the court for the Assam government in another SIR-related matter, said, "Whenever a public-spirited person is approached by a top political leader, the public-spirited person should advise him to file a petition directly rather than shooting from someone else's shoulder." CJI Kant said, "We are quite sure that the gentleman who has approached Mr Bhushan will certainly come forward to file a petition." Dwivedi further submitted that it was unfortunate that the petition itself had relied extensively on newspaper reports without verification, leading to prolonged arguments based on unverified material.

The court asked Dwivedi to reply on the SIR arguments in the main matter, challenging the electoral roll revision exercise in various states.

On December 11, hearing the main petitions challenging the SIR in different states, the apex court was told that the EC cannot assume the role of a "suspicious neighbour" or a "policeman", treating voters with doubt.

Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, representing the petitioners, opposed the SIR process being undertaken in several states, especially in Tamil Nadu, and submitted that the EC's constitutional mandate is to act as a facilitator and enabler of voting rights.

Earlier, the top court had asked whether the EC is barred from conducting an inquiry in the case of a doubtful citizen and if an inquisitorial process falls outside its constitutional power. PTI MNL RC