The future CJI interrupted AM Singhvi in SIR dispute hearing, said- show Bihar like this

New Delhi
In the Supreme Court on Wednesday, the petitions related to special intensive revision (SIR) of voter lists were heard in Bihar on Wednesday. Meanwhile, the apex court disagreed on the argument presented by the petitioners that the Election Commission’s document investigation process is ‘anti -voter’ and boycott step. The court said that in the brief revision of the earlier voter list in Bihar, the number of documents was seven and in special intensive revision (SIR) it is 11, which shows that SIR is favorable to voters.

A bench of the country’s future CJI Justice Suryakanth and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, while hearing the petitions challenging the June 24 decision of organizing SIT in Bihar, said that despite the plea of the petitioners that the Aadhaar was not an exceptional, it seems that a large number of documents were really included.

Sir voter friendly: Justice Kant
The bench said, “The number of documents in the earlier brief revision in the state was seven and the SIR is 11, which shows that this voter is favorable.” We understand your arguments that not accepting Aadhaar is an exceptional, but the greater number of documents is really an inclusive form. ”The apex court said that voters were required to submit one of the 11 documents included in the list.

Number of documents may be 11 but coverage less
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the petitioners, disagreed and said that even though the number of documents may be higher, his coverage is less. Giving the example of the availability of passports, Singhvi said that the number of passport holders in Bihar is one to two percent and there is no provision to give permanent resident certificate in the state. He said, “If we see the availability of documents with the population of Bihar, then it is known that the coverage is very low.”

Justice Kant interrupted Singhvi, don’t project this way
Meanwhile, Justice Kant, while interrupting Singhvi and intervening in the case, said, “Do not project Bihar in this way.” He added, “In the context of All India Services, the maximum representation is from this state. The most IAS, IPS, IFS (officers) are from here. If the youth population is not inspired then it cannot happen.”

Most people do not have this document
To this Singhvi said, “We have very talented scientists etc. from there, but it is limited to a class. Bihar has rural and flood areas. There are areas of poverty. What do they mean to make a list of 11 documents? The issue is that most people in Bihar will not have these documents. We are talking about real, authentic investigation.” Giving an example of passport, Singhvi said that only 1-2 percent of Bihar’s population has passports and this number is 36 lakhs. The bench replied that 36 lakh passport coverage is “good”.

Violation of Lal Babu decision
Singhvi said, “You have given 11 documents and three of these 11 documents are empty without any notice. The remaining two are suspects. So this impressive list of 11 is nothing but a house of cards. It is nothing else. It is not overlapping, but replacement.” The senior advocate argued that people are being asked to prove whether they are citizens or not? He said that this is a violation of the 1995 Lal Babu verdict. The Lal Babu decision had upheld the voter’s rights and made it mandatory that any step to remove the name of someone from the voter list should be taken on the basis of adequate evidence and voters should also be given an opportunity to present their case.

Adding names in voter list, removing EC jurisdiction
Explain that on August 12, a day earlier, the apex court said that it is under the jurisdiction of the Election Commission to include or excluding citizens or non-citizens in the voter list and supported the commission’s attitude to not accept the Aadhaar in the SIR of the voter list and the voter ID card in the SIR of the voter list as a decisive proof of citizenship. Amid demonstrations on the issue of SIR inside and out of Parliament, the apex court also said that the dispute is “a large extent issue of confidence”, as the Election Commission has claimed that about 7.9 crore of a total of 7.9 million people in Bihar were not required to file any documents for their or parents, whose names were in the 2003 voter list.