The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that the state government is capable of examining the allegations of attack on booth level officers (BLOs) in West Bengal as it turned down a request for urgent hearing on this matter during the ongoing hearing on the validity of special intensive revision (SIR) in Bihar.
A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and justice Joymalya Bagchi said, “There is a system already in place to maintain law and order. The state will look into the issue.”
The bench was replying to concerns raised by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay who sought urgent intervention of the court on “planned attack” on BLOs in West Bengal. He said, “There are repeated attacks, assaults, use of criminal force, intimidation and threats to the BLOs, in West Bengal and other states. These BLOs tasked with the responsibility of SIR are performing the most vital work to ensure free and fair elections.”
Another lawyer representing the interest of BLOs pointed out that while election officers who are on poll duty are provided safety and security and even compensation in the event of any loss of life while on duty, no such arrangement is provided to BLOs who are teachers or government staff drawn for SIR exercise across the states where electoral rolls are being revised.
“Have BLOs formed some sort of trade union which you represent,” the bench questioned, as it refused to entertain the petition at this stage observing that it will hear the issue later.
{{/usCountry}}“Have BLOs formed some sort of trade union which you represent,” the bench questioned, as it refused to entertain the petition at this stage observing that it will hear the issue later.
{{/usCountry}}Upadhyay, who has filed a separate petition seeking SIR in all states, said that instead of leaving it to the state to provide security to BLOs, the Election Commission of India (ECI) should also be competent to direct the police. He stated that similar to the period when the election process in a state leads to imposition of a model code of conduct with the state coming under the superintendence of the ECI, the same should be the rule when SIR is conducted in any state.
The court proceeded with the hearing on the main petitions challenging SIR in Bihar filed by political leaders, members of Parliament, social activists and non profit organisations. Senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi concluded his arguments on behalf of Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra pointing out that the current exercise being carried out by ECI is not SIR as there is only one instance in the history of the country when SIR was done.
Singhvi said that the SIR exercise was ordered by the ECI almost two decades ago in Thakurdwara assembly segment in Uttar Pradesh after 15,000 names belonging to one community had been deleted from the electoral rolls while another 20,000 names belonging to another community got added in the list.
“Extraordinary circumstances can arise for conducting SIR. The reasons cited by ECI for carrying out the current SIR as rapid urbanisation and migration, makes a mockery of section 21(3) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1950 (ROPA) that provides for SIR,” Singhvi said.
The court asked Singhvi, “Is there no discretion available to ECI. Does Section 21(3) not leave the area for ECI to tweak the reasons to achieve the goal articulated in the reasons.” He responded that such a power is not available with ECI.
“Never before has this massification of the entire states under SIR conducted in the past 75 years,” Singhvi said, while pointing out that such an exercise creates unreasonable classification between voters pre-2003 and post-2003 with further sub-classification in the latter category where the voter may show their name on the 2003 roll or that of their parents or the spouse’s parents on the roll.
Advocates Vrinda Grover and Prashant Bhushan also made brief submissions. As their arguments remained inconclusive, the court adjourned the hearing of the case to December 4.