Party questions exclusion of Aadhaar as proof of identity; poll panel’s notice to Pawan Khera termed vindictive
NEW DELHI – The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar is an exercise that is not just deeply concerning but could also result in extremely unfavourable consequences for the people of the state, the Congress said on Wednesday.
“Despite repeated concerns raised by political parties, civil society, and citizens, the (Election Commission of India) ECI has chosen opacity over transparency, silence over accountability, and reluctance over responsibility”, party spokesperson, MP and member of Congress Working Committee Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi has said.
Addressing a press conference at the AICC headquarters here, Singhvi questioned the conduct of the ECI and its resistance to accepting Aadhar card as the proof of identity for getting registered as a voter.
He said the ECI has continuously resisted Aadhar card as proof of identity and the Supreme Court had to finally issue a categorical directive about it.
Dr Singhvi also questioned the ECI’s intentions in targeting senior Congress leader Pawan Khera. Claiming it was vindictive, Dr Singhvi suggested that it was done merely because Khera keeps on posing pointed questions to the commission. He strongly objected to making personal details of the senior party leader public by the commission.
Dr Singhvi noted that the ECI initially failed to conduct any consultative exercise prior to beginning the SIR exercise in Bihar. Secondly, he added, the ECI failed to provide any cogent justification to initiate an intensive exercise such as the present one in such a short span of time. Thirdly, he said, the ECI undertook the SIR exercise in a state, which is bound for polls in the same year, which is in complete violation of its own precedents. “In the year 2003, the states of Maharashtra and Arunachal Pradesh were deliberately exempted from the SIR exercise on grounds that elections were to be held there in less than six months”, he pointed out.
Referring to the exclusion of Aadhaar as proof of identity, he said, the Indian National Congress along with other political parties had to repeatedly approach the Supreme Court due to several public interest issues arising out of the Bihar SIR exercise.
Dr Singhvi pointed out that the Supreme Court on three different dates directed the Election Commission to accept Aadhaar as valid documentation citing the potential for mass exclusions. “Begrudgingly the ECI gave in, but despite these directions, the approach of the electoral officers remained indifferent and blissfully ignorant, in continuing to deny voters inclusion in the electoral roll on the basis of the Aadhaar document”, he added.
He said, finally, on September 8, the Supreme Court categorically clarified that Aadhaar shall be accepted by the ECI as a 12th document for the purpose of inclusion in the revised voter list.
Referring to the notice issued by the District Election Office, New Delhi District to Khera on September 2 through its official X handle, Dr Singhvi said the notice placed his personal details in the public domain even before giving him an opportunity of being heard.
“The public dissemination of the show-cause notice makes it clear that the ECI has already pre-adjudicated the issue against Pawan Khera. This has no sanction in the Representation of the People’s Act or the Rules”, he said.
Dr Singhvi specifically objected to the manner and mode in which the notice was publicised on official social-media handles, inviting adverse media commentary prior to any inquiry and publicly disclosing Khera and Ms Kota Neelima’s residential details without their consent or prior notice.
Putting the record straight, he said, Pawan Khera was registered in constituency number 40, which is New Delhi. After relocation to Jangpura in 2017, he submitted Form 6 in compliance with Rule 13 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. In this form, he disclosed that the details of his prior registration, including the constituency, address and earlier EPIC number. In the due course of law, his name was included in the electoral roll of Jangpura constituency, and a new EPIC number was issued to him. A copy of receipt of the Form 6 submitted by him was also provided by the EC on August 18, 2017.
“In fact, the nature of the notice being a public chargesheet could have well been avoided by the minutest degree of due diligence by the commission”, he observed, asking, “why did the ECI not conduct a brief enquiry into its own records before issuing the notice in the public domain?”
He also asked who authorised the Election Registration Officer of New Delhi constituency to issue the notice, without having undertaken the most basic of due diligence.
“Is the timing of the public show-cause coinciding with the Opposition’s objections in the Bihar Special Intensive Revision and in Mahadevapura Constituency (Karnataka) a coincidence or a mere diversionary tactic?” he asked.
