The Supreme Court on Tuesday deferred till November 17 the hearing on a batch of petitions challenging alleged unilateral SIR-related decisions by chief election commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar, on the ground that this will enable the petitioners to file their response to the poll panel’s affidavit on the allegations.
The top court, however, issued a notice to the Election Commission (EC) seeking its response to Trinamool MP Dola Sen’s petition alleging illegal modification of Form 6 to the detriment of the interest of new voters.
A bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant refrained from passing any interim injunction as sought by senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, for a direction to the EC to preserve the internal files, notings and correspondence exchanged between the CEC and the two election commissioners — Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. Sandhu and Joshi had reportedly opposed several unilateral decisions taken by Kumar.
The bench, which included Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana, told Singhvi that the court would examine all these issues when the matter came up for hearing.
Referring to the affidavit filed by the EC on Monday, senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for Sen, argued that the poll panel had corroborated the claim from various quarters that it had modified Form 6 without any statutory power.
On October 5, the top court had clarified that it had not approved any modification of Form 6 as claimed by the EC earlier.
“We are making it clear that any modified Form 6 has not been approved by us. Let’s be clear. When the record is produced, we would like to see who has modified it,” the bench told senior Guruswamy, appearing for PIL petitioner Shailendra Mani Tripath.
Under the modified Form 6, new voters must mandatorily state whether their parents/ grandparents were mapped with the 2002 voter rolls. The modified version has drawn flak because every new voter risks being excluded from the rolls if they fail to establish a direct link with the 2002 voter list through their parents or grandparents.
The EC, in its affidavit, denied that Form 6 had been modified or that new voters were being asked to provide details of their parents/ grandparents.
According to the affidavit, the declaration mandated during the SIR is a separate document provided by the roll-revision orders and “is not a part of Form 6”.
It said the declaration used in the Bihar SIR was replaced in the subsequent orders so that applicants could give details of themselves, their parents or grandparents from the 2002 rolls and avoid submitting further documents once successfully mapped.
Those unable to provide such details or whose records could not be linked would need to submit supporting documents as prescribed.
“In case none of the documents are submitted by the applicant, he/she may be called upon to do so by the electoral registration officer,” it said.
The commission, however, acknowledged that the way the declaration was displayed on its online platform “could be construed as though an amendment of Form 6 had been made”.