Election Commission on ADR Bihar voter roll case
The Election Commission of India (ECI) on Thursday told the Supreme Court that the approach of the NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) was “communal,” after it alleged a “disproportionate exclusion of Muslims” in Bihar’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
Appearing for the ECI, senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi argued before a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi that ADR’s claim was based on the findings of a name-recognition software whose accuracy was “doubtful.” He said the petitioners were relying on unreliable data to make sweeping allegations of religious bias.
“The argument of the petitioner reflects a communal approach which is to be deprecated,” Dwivedi told the bench, asserting that the electoral roll database does not record or identify voters by religion.
The poll panel urged the court to dismiss the batch of petitions that challenged its June 24 decision to conduct the Special Intensive Revision in Bihar. The ECI maintained that the exercise was carried out in accordance with law and that the allegations of bias were unfounded.
In its submission, the Commission said the petitioners had “ulterior motives” and were “merely content with making false allegations to discredit the SIR exercise, the final electoral roll, and the ECI itself for the electoral interests of political parties.”
The petitions were filed by several individuals and organisations, including the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), activist and politician Yogendra Yadav, Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) MP Manoj Jha, Congress leader K.C. Venugopal, and Mujahid Alam.
The matter concerns allegations that the ongoing voter list revision in Bihar disproportionately removed names belonging to the Muslim community a claim the ECI has categorically denied, calling it both factually incorrect and communally divisive.
Disclaimer: This content has been produced and published by Local Law Media Network for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. The views and opinions expressed are independent and do not reflect the position of any legal practice or organization associated with the individuals mentioned.
