New Delhi : The Election Commission of India (ECI) has filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court opposing the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR)’s demand to disclose constituency and booth-wise details of about 65 lakh electors whose enumeration forms were not submitted.
The ADR’s application had sought two directions: first, to publish a constituency and booth-wise list of omitted electors with reasons such as death, permanent migration, duplication, or being untraceable; and second, to disclose the names of electors whose enumeration forms have been “not recommended” by the Booth Level Officers (BLOs).
In its reply, the poll body said that the statutory scheme under the Representation of People Act, 1950, and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, does not mandate creating or publishing such a list.
It said that the ECI is not required to prepare or share any separate list of names of people not included in the draft electoral rolls, or publish the reasons for non-inclusion of anyone in the draft electoral rolls for any reason.
“As neither the law nor guidelines provide for preparation or sharing of any such list of previous electors whose enumeration form is not received for any reason during the Enumeration phase, no such list can be sought by the petitioner as a matter of right,” the affidavit stated.
It added that any eligible voter whose name is missing can file Form 6 along with a declaration to lodge a claim for inclusion in the draft electoral rolls during the claims and objections period, i.e., between August 1 and September 1.
The above process implicitly indicates that the applicant is not deceased, permanently shifted, or untraceable, explained the poll body.
“Thus, providing reasons for non-inclusion along with the list of names serves no practical purpose as the exercise for all three aforestated categories of reasons remains the same, i.e., filing of Form 6 along with Declaration under Annexure-D,” the ECI stated.
The reply document said that the ADR’s assertion that, without availability of reasons, the individuals whose names are omitted from the draft rolls will not be able to seek appropriate recourse is “false, misconceived, and unsustainable”.
As per the ECI, exclusion of a name from the draft rolls is not equivalent to deletion from the electoral rolls.
“The draft roll simply shows that the duly filled enumeration form of existing electors has been received during the enumeration phase,” explained the poll body.
It said that prior to the publication of the draft electoral roll, the ECI had directed the instructed the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO), District Election Officers (DEOs), Electoral Registration Officers (EROs), and BLOs to provide political parties with booth-level lists of individuals whose enumeration forms had not been received for any reason, and to seek their help in reaching these electors.
“Such meetings were held across the state in all districts, and the lists were duly supplied to recognised political parties through their district presidents and appointed Booth Level Agents (BLAs),” the affidavit said.
It further pointed out that after the publication of the draft rolls, political parties were provided with an updated list of electors whose names were not included, to ensure every effort was made to reach these individuals and that no eligible voter was left out.
“The political parties have acknowledged receipt of the said list. Here, it is also pertinent to point out that the list includes acknowledgements on behalf of CPI(M-L) as well,” stated the ECI.
It highlighted that voters can check their status online by entering their EPIC number on the poll body’s official website, which also provides BLO contact details for assistance.
“Thus, it is a blatant attempt on the part of the petitioner (ADR) to mislead this Hon’ble Court by deliberately making patently false and erroneous assertions in the application. The petitioner’s approach is consistent with its earlier attempts to malign the ECI by building false narratives on digital, print and social media,” added the affidavit, urging the apex court to impose heavy costs and consider contempt proceedings against the ADR.
