TMC MP in SC against Bihar poll rolls revision
2
Kolkata: Trinamool Krishnanagar MP
Mahua Moitra
on Saturday filed a writ petition in the
Supreme Court
against the special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, urging the scrapping of the
Election Commission
move.
The EC order violated the Constitution and the Representation of People (RP) Act, 1950, she claimed. Trinamool has been opposing the poll panel move since the order was passed on June 24.
In her petition, Moitra said that she was afraid the SIR would be replicated in Bengal next, ahead of its assembly polls in 2026. Instructions for it "have already been given to the EROs", claimed the MP in her petition. Moitra has urged the SC to stop the EC from "issuing similar orders for SIR in other states."
Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee earlier called the poll panel move "worse than NRC" and alleged that asking for the birth certificates of parents would "target Bengal".
You Can Also Check:
Kolkata AQI
|
Weather in Kolkata
|
Bank Holidays in Kolkata
|
Public Holidays in Kolkata
Moitra, in her petition, a copy of which has been accessed by TOI, argues: "Electoral roll in Bihar has undergone special summary revision between Oct 2024 and Jan 2025, with the existing roll being published on Jan 6, which included updating and deleting names based on deaths, migration and other eligibility factors.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Free P2,000 GCash eGift
UnionBank Credit Card
Apply Now
Undo
Thus, the EC decision to conduct a second revision in such a draconian manner in a poll-bound state is unjustified and unreasonable.
"
Moitra's petition also claims that the EC order mirrored NRC. "The order disproportionately affects economically and socially vulnerable communities and resembles the structure and consequences of the NRC." The move, she says, is absurd because "it requires voters to again prove their eligibility" after having "voted multiple times".
Moitra also questioned the timing of the SIR, saying, "The exercise is being undertaken in close proximity to the Bihar assembly elections scheduled for Nov, thereby risking large-scale exclusion of eligible voters.. The petitioner has reasons to believe that the said exercise would be replicated in Bengal in the coming months." Calling the move "extra-legal," Moitra argued that the "order arbitrarily excludes commonly accepted identity documents such as Aadhaar and ration cards from the list of accepted documents, thereby putting a huge burden on voters who are at a risk of getting disenfranchised.
"
This comes after This line of argument has also found mention in a similar plea that has also been filed by the NGO the Association of Democratic Reforms (ADR) moved the SC on Friday, challenging the poll panel's direction. ADR also sought the setting aside of the order and communication, arguing that it violated the Constitution. The NGO also claimed that the poll panel order could "arbitrarily and without due process" disenfranchise lakhs of voters and disrupt free and fair elections.
Moitra's petition also claims that the EC order mirrored NRC. CM Banerjee has already termed "this NRC-like move threatens the integrity of our electoral process and risks disenfranchising millions." "The order disproportionately affects economically and socially vulnerable communities and resembles the structure and consequences of the NRC." The move, Moitra says, is absurd because "it requires voters to again prove their eligibility" after having "voted multiple times".
This is a first in India where "electors whose names are already there in rolls are being asked to prove their eligibility," the petition says.
Moitra told reporters, "TMC and CM Banerjee have already said SIR posed a great danger to democracy. EC has begun this in Bihar and plans to start this in Bengal and other states. Deletion of names can be done only after a hearing. SIR also asks one to prove their place of birth. For people born between 1987 and 2004, one has to prove the birthplace of one parent, and for people born after that, they need to prove the birthplace for both parents.
.. EC is merely executing BJP's Machiavellian plans."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
12 minutes ago
- Indian Express
P B Mehta writes: In Bihar, now, prove your identity
The Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar is becoming a travesty. It is hard to disagree with the formal objective of the exercise: No eligible voter should be excluded, and no ineligible person should be included. But this reasonable aim is being transformed into a bureaucratic dystopia that threatens the rights of ordinary voters. The last intensive revision of electoral rolls was carried out in 2003. Now, the Commission announces a special revision just weeks before an election — on the heels of a special summary revision that involved extensive surveys barely six months ago, with an updated list published as recently as January. Yet voters are now required to furnish documentary proof of citizenship from a list of 11 prescribed documents — most of which they are unlikely to possess. This demand is unprecedented in the history of electoral roll creation. The new documentation requirements are not just onerous, they are bewilderingly complex. Those whose names appeared in the 2003 rolls may furnish an extract as proof. But others face steeper hurdles. Those born before 1987 must provide a document with place and date of birth. Those born between 1987 and 2004 must produce a document with their parents' date of birth and one of 11 documents proving their own place and date of birth. Those born after 2004 must go further, furnishing proof of both parents' date and place of birth in addition to their own. This process places an extraordinary burden on the citizen and risks mass disenfranchisement. The logic of the order is perverse: Every principle turns into its opposite. The Commission boasts of giving voters a choice among 11 documents — what liberty! But this liberty is hollow. The Commission refuses to recognise the documents most citizens actually have — like Aadhaar or MGNREGA cards — while demanding documents that are beyond the reach of most. Even conservative estimates suggest that lakhs of voters could be excluded. Almost all the petitions against the order provide data on the minuscule number of citizens who possess all the relevant documents. And the arbitrariness is striking: Why should a family register carry more weight as proof of citizenship than, say, other excluded cards? Dissect the list of the 11 acceptable documents, and its social bias becomes evident. Most relate to education, government employment, or property rights — echoes of an era when suffrage was tied to privilege. This is not a direct return to educational or property-based qualifications, but the privileges conferred on the educated and propertied are stark. It is almost a throwback to the 19th century, when the privileges of the educated and propertied were taken for granted. In principle, the Election Commission allows for safeguards: Electoral registration officers (EROs) must conduct inquiries and provide a fair hearing before deletion. But these procedural protections, in context, can invert their meaning. They expose vulnerable citizens to local officials' discretion, particularly in a state like Bihar where administrative capacity is uneven. The time frame is implausibly short, and it is unrealistic to expect lakhs of inquiries to be conducted fairly and consistently. Even worse is the looming threat that the citizens flagged in this process could be referred to a Foreigners Tribunal. Is the appeals process a remedy — or merely another way to ensnare citizens in an opaque and hostile system? We need not speculate about the Commission's motives; they may well be honourable. Nor do we need to predict the political fallout of this move — it is often unpredictable. What matters is the potential effect: This exercise reveals the state's presumptuous character. It burdens citizens with the constant demand to prove their identity, as if they are forever on probation. The KYC (know your customer) mania has extended to voting: Proof must be furnished again and again, often under arbitrary or shifting standards. This formalism — articulating reasonable objectives while ignoring practical realities — inflicts real harm. It ignores the ground realities of documentation in India, particularly in poorer states. It overlooks how documentation requirements impose disproportionate burdens on the marginalised. The order also disrupts lives with its unreasonable timelines. On various estimates, about a tenth of the population of Bihar migrates out for work; floods severely affect families during this time of year. Even in the best of times, the state does not have the capacity to conduct these kinds of exercises in short order. This order replicates the disruptive logic of demonetisation, where the state asserts its power by inducing mass anxiety. Even if one accepts that an intensive revision is necessary, it cannot inspire public trust if announced suddenly, weeks before an election. If the Commission truly believes these exercises are essential, it should have evolved consistent and reasonable norms regarding format, documentation, and timing in consultation with political parties. Our bureaucracy has long had a penchant for placing citizens at the mercy of petty officials. It remains deaf to the claims raised by social movements around enfranchisement. To put it bluntly, this exercise appears to be a pilot for a backdoor NRC, introducing new and discriminatory documentation standards. This is not just about Bihar. Even if one believes an NRC is necessary, it must be carried out fairly, without fear, and only when the state has built the infrastructure and political conditions to support it. This has not happened. Instead, the burden of state failure is being shifted onto citizens. The state demands documentation it neither trusts nor has enabled people to obtain. We should be cautious in impugning constitutional authorities — their credibility is a precious resource. The courts also should not tread on other constitutional authorities lightly. But voting is so fundamental to our identity as citizens, and so constitutive of the republic, that the courts need to do the minimum necessary to ensure that such exercises are not just formally fair, but also fair in substance. But this initiative by the EC is ill-judged and ill-timed. It should be deferred until it can be executed credibly, with transparency, and without placing an undue burden on genuine citizens. The EC's order is, at the very least, an exercise in bureaucratic insensitivity and state overreach, and will erode trust in institutions. The task of the state is not to manufacture new sources of fear — it is to relieve citizens of their anxieties. The writer is contributing editor, The Indian Express
Time of India
22 minutes ago
- Time of India
In digital era, US supreme court insists on vast piles of paper
WASHINGTON: In his year-end report in 2023, chief justice John Roberts celebrated "the digital revolution in the federal courts". Electronic filing, he wrote, was "rendering paper largely optional". But not at the Supreme Court. In addition to requiring electronic submissions, its rules instruct litigants who are not prisoners or poor to file 40 paper copies of many documents, including petitions seeking review, briefs opposing them, briefs from the parties in the cases the court agrees to hear and the accompanying flood of friend-of-the-court briefs. And that is just the beginning of the court's elaborate requirements. The paper filings must take the form of handsome little typeset booklets printed on paper "that is opaque, unglazed and not less than 60 pounds in weight". The rules specify permissible fonts and margins, along with how the booklets are to be bound - "firmly in at least two places along the left margin (saddle stitch or perfect binding preferred)." The booklets are, allowing for the subject matter, a pleasure to read. They are also redundant, expensive and wasteful. Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like An engineer reveals: One simple trick to get internet without a subscription Techno Mag Learn More Undo by Taboola by Taboola "The court's rules impose significant and unnecessary costs to litigants and to the environment," William J Aceves, a law professor at California Western School of Law, wrote in a study published last month in the University of Colorado Law Review. He urged the court to do away with paper submissions, particularly for the first round of briefs, over whether the justices should hear a case at all. Focusing solely on those early filings, Aceves calculated the court's rules require the submission of more than 5 million pieces of paper each term. "If stacked together, these filings would reach beyond 2,000 feet, which exceeds the height of the tallest building in the US," he wrote. "If weighed, these filings would take over 33 tonnes of paper to produce." The court can make do with electronic filings and a single hard copy. Indeed, it did so during the pandemic, when it suspended the usual rules for filings during the first round of briefing starting in April 2020. Litigants and scholars welcomed the development. Josh Blackman, a law professor at South Texas College of Law, said the change signalled the end of a "byzantine policy for submitting printed briefs." More than a year later, though, the court reinstated the rule. Some justices have said they read at least some briefs electronically. Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in 2016, used an iPad. In a 2009 interview, Justice Elena Kagan said she preferred a Kindle. Aceves said he had sent copies of his article to the court's clerk and to the chief justice to urge them to consider the matter. "In light of my arguments, I recognise the irony of sending hard copies... But I don't have their email addresses."
Time of India
22 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump says US to send more weapons to Ukraine, days after ordering pause in deliveries
Washington: President Donald Trump says the US will have to send more weapons to Ukraine , just days after ordering pause in critical weapons deliveries to Kyiv. The comments by Trump on Monday appeared to be an abrupt change in posture after the Pentagon announced last week that it would hold back delivering to Ukraine some air defense missiles, precision-guided artillery and other weapons as part of its announced pause to some arms shipments amid US concerns that its own stockpiles have declined too much. "We have to," Trump told reporters about additional weapons deliveries for Ukraine. "They have to be able to defend themselves." by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Mundfalten "bügeln" mit TV-Tipp (Löwen) | bedrop Undo Russian attacks on Ukraine killed at least 11 civilians and injured more than 80 others, including seven children, officials said Monday. Meanwhile, Russian's transport minister was found dead in what authorities said was an apparent suicide - news that broke hours after the Kremlin announced he had been dismissed by President Vladimir Putin. The firing of Roman Starovoit followed a weekend of travel chaos when airports grounded hundreds of flights due to the threat of drone attacks from Ukraine, although Russian officials did not give a reason for his dismissal. Live Events Hundreds of flights were cancelled or delayed at airports in Moscow and St. Petersburg, but Russian commentators said the air traffic disruptions have become customary amid frequent Ukrainian drone raids and were unlikely to have triggered his dismissal. Starovoit, 53, served as Russia 's transport minister since May 2024. Russian media have reported that his dismissal could have been linked to an investigation into the embezzlement of state funds allocated for building fortifications in the Kursk region, where he served as governor before being appointed transportation minister. The alleged embezzlement has been cited as one of the reasons for deficiencies in Russia's defensive lines that failed to stem a surprise Ukrainian incursion in the region launched in August 2024. Russia fired more than 100 drones at civilian areas of Ukraine overnight, authorities said. Russia recently has intensified its airstrikes on civilian areas after more than three years of war . In the past week, Russia launched some 1,270 drones, 39 missiles and almost 1,000 powerful glide bombs at Ukraine, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Monday. Russia's bigger army is also trying hard to break through at some points along the roughly 1,000-kilometer (620 miles) front line, where Ukrainian forces are severely stretched. The strain of keeping Russia's invasion at bay, the lack of progress in direct peace talks, and last week's halt of some promised US weapons shipments has compelled Ukraine to seek more military help from the U.S. and Europe. Zelenskyy said Saturday that Ukraine had signed deals with European allies and a leading US defense company to step up drone production, ensuring Kyiv receives "hundreds of thousands" more this year. "Air defense is the main thing for protecting life," Zelenskyy wrote on Telegram on Monday. That includes developing and manufacturing interceptor drones that can stop Russia's long-range Shahed drones, he said. Extensive use of drones has also helped Ukraine compensate for its troop shortages on the front line. One person was killed in the southern city of Odesa, another person was killed and 71 were injured in northeastern Kharkiv and falling drone debris caused damage in two districts of Kyiv, the capital, during nighttime drone attacks, Ukrainian authorities said. Russian short-range drones also killed two people and injured two others in the northern Sumy region, officials said. Sumy is one of the places where Russia has concentrated large numbers of troops. Also, nine people were injured and seven killed in the Donetsk region of eastern Ukraine, regional head Vadym Filashkin said. He didn't specify the weapons used. More Russian long-range drone strikes Monday targeted military mobilisation centers for the third time in five days, in an apparent attempt to disrupt recruitment, Ukraine's Army Ground Forces command said. Regional officials in Kharkiv and southern Zaporizhzhia said at least 17 people were injured. Meanwhile, Russia's Defense Ministry said Monday that its troops shot down 91 Ukrainian drones in 13 Russian regions overnight, as well as over the Black Sea and the Crimean Peninsula, which was illegally annexed by Russia in 2014.
