Introduction:

In a recent development, the Supreme Court concluded proceedings related to the issue of duplication of names in electoral rolls, taking note of the detailed response provided by the Election Commission of India (ECI). The petitioner, Samvidhan Bachao Trust, had raised concerns about the alleged duplication of names and errors in electoral rolls. The ECI, represented by Mr. Amit Sharma, highlighted the existing legal remedies available to voters for corrections and emphasized the adherence to guidelines issued. The court, satisfied with the ECI’s response, closed the proceedings, acknowledging the legal avenues for aggrieved voters.

Arguments of Both Sides:

Samvidhan Bachao Trust, represented in the PIL by their plea, expressed concerns about duplication of names and errors in the electoral rolls. The petitioner questioned the compliance with ECI guidelines issued on May 29, 2023, regarding the revision of electoral rolls. On the other side, Mr. Amit Sharma, representing the ECI, provided detailed information about the guidelines and subsequent instructions issued for the deletion of names in case of shifting, demographic similarities, and death. He emphasized the due process for corrections outlined in Section 26 of the Registration of Electoral Rules 1961, where voters can approach Electoral Registration Officers with Form 7 for objections or deletions.

Court’s Judgement:

The Supreme Court, led by the Chief Justice of India, observed that the ECI had provided a comprehensive response, detailing the guidelines and legal provisions for correcting electoral rolls. Section 21A of the 1961 Rules empowers the registration officer to take steps to delete names of voters in specific situations. The court highlighted that Form 7 serves as the Voter Application Form for Objection for Proposed Inclusion/Deletion of Name in the Existing Electoral Roll, ensuring due process for any changes. The Chief Justice expressed satisfaction with the legal measures available for voters to address errors in the electoral roll and concluded that further court directions were unnecessary.