Supreme Court’s big comment on SIR dispute.
The dispute in the case of SIR before the assembly elections in Bihar was heard in the Supreme Court on Tuesday. During this hearing, the Supreme Court has made important remarks. Justice Suryakant of the Supreme Court has said that the Election Commission is correct, it is necessary to investigate that Aadhaar cannot be accepted as a final proof.
What was the plea in the court?
During the hearing in the case, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal said that every person born after 1950 is a citizen of India but there is a huge disturbance in the process here. Giving examples, he said that 12 people were shown dead in a small assembly constituency, while they are alive. Blo did not do any work. Senior Advocate Gopal S. Told the court that 65 lakh names have been removed, this is a collective exclusion. At the same time, senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi on behalf of the Election Commission said that this is just a draft role. There may be a small mistake in such a big practice, but to say that the dead are alive, not right.
Read what happened in the hearing?
- Justice Joymala Bagchi said that the preparation steps before the draft role are not followed properly, it is a serious matter. The court said that people who are shown incorrectly dead will be rectified.
- Sibal said that Justice Bagchi said that this is required at the stage of Form 4. 4 drafts, if I have been excluded and I want to join, I fill in Form 6. Justice Bagchi said that based on these reports, BLO prepares a draft role according to Rule 10. Sibal said that please see Form 4, what they want from me. Name and details-Name of Nagrik, father/mother/husband details, age, signature.
- The rules of the SIR process are being discussed … What has Sibal asked in the imonsing form? Nothing like this. Look at the form, about which he says that he has asked people to fill. It has nothing to do with Form 4. The whole process is against the law, they have no right to do so.
- Justice Suryakant said where is it written in the form that all documents should be there?
- Sibal said that the basic thing is missing.
- Justice Kant said that it is true or apprehension, let’s see. The objective is to provide facilities, come on Aadhaar card. It reads’ It is not necessary to give all the documents from the list below.
- Sibal said that the people of Bihar do not have these documents, this is the case.
- Justice Suryakant said that Bihar is a part of India. If Bihar does not have, then other states will not have it. What are these documents? If you are a central government employee, any identity card/document issued by the local/LIC.
- Sibal said that they are saying that this cannot be confirmed. Talking about the birth certificate, only 3.056% has. Passport 2.7% and 14.71 have matriculation certificates
- J. Kant: To prove that something must be done that you are a citizen of India… Everyone has […] There is a certificate, it is needed to buy a SIM. OBC/SC/ST Certificate …
- Sibal said that he is excluding any document being given to the 2003 people. These are 2025 rolls.
- Justice Kant said that we are asking that if you are challenging the process, then you are questioning the cut-off date. So let’s come on whether the Election Commission has such a right? If it is assumed that the Election Commission does not have such a right, then the matter is over.
- Sibal said that this is correct. But they also say that if I was in the role of 2003, and I have not filed the calculation form, I will be excluded. I also object to this.
- Justice Bagchi said that Rule 12 says that if you are not in the role of 2003, you will have to give documents.
- The Supreme Court told Sibal that we want to know that the allegations that you have are merely or have a ground reality.
- Sibal said that this is our argument. Crores of people are expected to be excluded. There are elections in October, why should they do this? He says in his reply that he did not conduct any investigation. A total of 7.9 crore voters, they say that 7.24 crores have filled the form, 22 lakhs have died (it is without investigation), 7 lakhs have already been nominated.
- Justice Kant said that this means 7.24 crore are alive. 22 lakhs have died. Where are those crores that you are saying about.
- Sibal said that 4.96 crore is part of the 2003 voter list. We have about 4 points left.
- Justice Bagchi said that the dead people will be removed in SIR. What is the objection in this?
- Justice Suryakant: The Election Commission is correct, to say that Aadhaar cannot be accepted as a final proof, it is necessary to investigate.
- Advocate Prashant Bhushan said that he did not say anywhere that it is a list of 65 lakh people and these are among 65 lakh people who have died and they are those who have moved. He has filed an answer saying that he does not need to give information.
- Election Commission lawyer Rakesh Dwivedi said that we have given to BLA, a completely false statement. The court is being misled.
- Bhushan said that the Election Commission has complete information. They are saying that we are not obliged to give you information. It is not that they do not know. Even more shocking is that the BLO of the Election Commission has written ‘not recommended/recommended’ and we have received their list in relation to two districts through a whistleblower. What we have come to know is shocking, 10-12% of the people who have filled the form are not recommended! What is its basis? The Election Commission has never done this before in the history of the country.
- The Supreme Court asked the petitioners against Bihar: If 7.24 voters out of 7.9 crore voters, it rejects the disappearance of 1 crore voters.
- Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi said that the Election Commission has reversed the entire system of amending the voter list. Under the guise of amendment, they are trying to reverse the burden of proving citizenship: Singhvi
- Bhushan said that the Election Commission has complete information. They are saying that we are not obliged to give you information. It is not that they do not know. Even more shocking is that the BLO of the Election Commission has written ‘not recommended/recommended’ and we have received their list in relation to two districts through a whistleblower. What we have come to know is shocking, 10-12% of the people who have filled the form are not recommended! What is its basis? The Election Commission has never done this before in the history of the country.
Latest india news
