HC to urgently hear plea challenging Maharashtra SIR

The petition, filed by businessmen Sagar Ramesh Gawai and Rafiquellahi Khan, alleges numerous flaws in the implementation of the special intensive revision of electoral rolls in Maharashtra

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Monday agreed to urgently hear a petition challenging the implementation of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Maharashtra, days after reports about an internal rift within the three-member Election Commission of India (ECI) over how the exercise is being conducted.

Workers of the NCP (SP) staged a protest against chief election commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the Election Commission of India, alleging irregularities in the SIR process. (Praful Gangurde / Hindustan Times)

A separate petition before the court’s Kolhapur bench has also raised concerns about the reported objections by two election commissioners to several decisions concerning electoral rolls, including voter registration, deletion and restoration of names, and control of the voter database. However, the Kolhapur bench denied an urgent hearing.

The petitions were filed days after The Indian Express reported that two of the three election commissioners—Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi—formally objected on record at least 14 times over 10 months to unilateral decisions made without their knowledge under Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar.

The petition before the principal bench in Mumbai was taken up on Monday. A division bench of chief justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and justice Advait Sethna posted it for hearing on October 5 after the petitioners’ lawyers said the matter was urgent.

The petition, filed by businessmen Sagar Ramesh Gawai, 46, and Rafiquellahi Khan, 39, alleges numerous flaws in the implementation of the SIR in Maharashtra. It seeks disclosure of the order and the recorded reasons under which the exercise is being undertaken in Maharashtra.

“The petitioners do not seek to stop the SIR or to disturb this programme. The ECI may make a limited electoral assessment but cannot conclusively determine citizenship. Where the doubt remains, the matter must be referred to the competent authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955, and the electoral consequence must abide by its decision,” the petition, filed through advocates Prakash Ambedkar, Hemant Ghadigaonkar, Sandesh More and Hitendra Gandhi, states.

The petition also alleges that the ECI’s instructions do not require voters to submit documents during the enumeration process, yet Booth Level Officers (BLOs) have been asking citizens to provide supporting documents when collecting enumeration forms.

Petition before Kolhapur bench

Meanwhile, four residents of Ratnagiri have approached the Kolhapur bench seeking action over what they allege were 14 unilateral decisions taken by the ECI during the SIR process.

It also seeks the halting of the SIR process in Maharashtra, the restoration of deleted voter names, the postponement of forthcoming state elections until legally compliant electoral rolls are prepared and approved, and the constitution of an independent judicial committee to examine the alleged irregularities.

The matter was mentioned before a division bench of justices Sharmila Deshmukh and Neeraj Dhote on Monday. However, the bench declined to grant an immediate hearing due to its roster workload.

“What is urgent about it? Is it a PIL? Since it’s a writ petition, what private right do you have against the Election Commission?” the bench said, while posting the matter for hearing on October 22.

The petitioners, Prathamesh Gopal Gavankar, Gaurav Suryakant Nakharekar, Aadesh Shashikant Bhatkar and Smitali Nilesh Narvekar, have relied on media reports alleging that election commissioners Sandhu and Joshi had objected to decisions concerning the ECI’s constitutional and statutory functions on at least 14 occasions.

According to the petition, the reported objections relate to decisions on the registration of new voters, the deletion and restoration of names from electoral rolls, appeals against the inclusion or deletion of electors, and the control of the electoral roll database and related information technology systems.

Among the allegations cited in the petition is an “unauthorised alteration” of Form 6, used to apply for voter registration. The petition says this change introduced a mandatory declaration requiring applicants to establish that their ancestors were on the electoral rolls at an earlier period.

The petition also alleges that the two election commissioners had raised concerns over the centralisation of database control, software that allegedly prevented local Electoral Registration Officers from overriding automated deletions, unilateral freezing of voter links and the alleged withholding of an interim audit report on the SIR.