New Delhi, Oct 15 The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the Election Commission and its chief Gyanesh Kumar to respond on a plea by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and 12 other opposition leaders over alleged large-scale voter deletions and SIR irregularities.
The top court also took strong note of submissions that attempts were made by Gandhi and others to browbeat the judiciary by undertaking a march on October 12.
“Nobody can browbeat us (judiciary),” Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said, adding that the bench was cognisant of the developments and statements made outside and inside the courtroom.
“We will ask one of the petitioners about his conduct on the next date of hearing,” the CJI said, without naming anyone.
The observation assumes significance as one of the state units of the Congress recently sought the CJI’s resignation while commenting on his observations that the law and order falls under the executive domain.
“We are not sitting in ivory towers. We know what statements they are making outside and what they are saying in court. We know everything,” the CJI, who was heading the bench that also comprised Justice Joymalya Bagchi, said.
The bench issued notice to the poll panel, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi seeking their responses on the plea filed by Gandhi and others.
Besides Gandhi, Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, TMC MP Saugata Roy, Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav, Rashtriya Janata Dal leader Tejashwi Prasad Yadav, Nationalist Congress Party (Sharad Pawar) leader Supriya Sule, Shiv Sena-UBT leader Sanjay Raut, Communist Party of India’s D Raja, and some other leaders are co-petitioners in the plea.
During the hearing in a packed courtroom, the moment Gandhi’s plea was called out, senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi commenced the submissions saying the case pertains to the issue of collective decision-making by the poll panel and the alterations made in Form 6.
Form 6 is an application through which an eligible person seeks inclusion in the electoral roll.
Simultaneously, senior advocate Kapil Sibal told the bench that he was appearing in the case for Gandhi.
This led Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to pose a query as to who is representing Gandhi in the case.
The plea has sought the constitution of an independent committee headed by a retired apex court judge and assisted by technical experts and other citizens of eminence, to conduct within a fixed time an independent audit of deletions and modifications made during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
It has sought a direction to ensure that no voter name is deleted from the electoral rolls without notice and a reasonable opportunity of hearing in accordance with the law, and also to ensure that eligible persons in Punjab and other states going to polls are permitted to seek inclusion in the electoral rolls until the last date permitted by law.
“Issue an interim direction suspending the ongoing Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls across the states, pending consideration and adjudication of the issues raised in the present petition, in the interests of protecting the rights of eligible electors and preserving the integrity of the electoral process,” the plea said.
Besides the plea filed by Gandhi and others, the apex court also dealt with petitions concerning protests, including alleged assault on journalists and lawyers, and SIR.
It also heard separate pleas concerning October 12 march by Gandhi and other leaders to the apex court and de-notifying Jantar Mantar as a designated protest site in Delhi.
The top court issued notices to Gandhi, Kharge, Akhilesh Yadav, Mahua Moitra, the Congress party and others on a plea against the October 12 march to the top court.
The bench also issued notices to the poll panel and others on a plea filed by AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi seeking to set aside SIR in view of a report in The Indian Express that election commissioners Sandhu and Joshi were not on the same page while taking crucial decisions.
On October 12, the raging protests over the “vote theft” charge reached the Supreme Court’s doorstep.
Opposition stalwarts, joined by activists and civil society members, undertook a “March for Democracy” and filed a joint petition against SIR and alleged poll irregularities in a major show of strength in the national capital.
During the hearing, the Solicitor General also referred to the unconditional apology tendered by Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan in a contempt matter and submitted that tendering unconditional apology does not mean that actions cannot be defended and said it is a part of the procedure.
The bench told Mehta that it is not taking cognisance of media reports that authorities tendered unconditional apologies before the court.
“Whenever a contempt notice is issued by the Supreme Court, it is required that the party responding to the notice must begin their affidavit with an unconditional apology. Only thereafter all other facts and arguments are presented. This is mandatorily followed in every contempt petition,” a statement issued by PIB said.
The contempt case pertained to alleged violation of the apex court’s direction to ensure no “complete prohibition” on Metro and train services in Delhi in the wake of the October 10 protest called by the Cockroach Janta Party.
The city has witnessed several protests demanding the resignation of the CEC over alleged irregularities in the SIR.
(PTI News)
