NEW DELHI – The Supreme Court has expressed concerns regarding the quality of evidence presented by an NGO, Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), in a case concerning alleged voter list deletions in Bihar. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi voiced their skepticism after the Election Commission (EC) pointed out falsehoods in affidavits submitted by the ADR.
The case centered around the ADR's claims that a significant number of names were removed from Bihar's final voter list without proper notification. The Supreme Court, while hearing the matter, was presented with affidavits by the NGO detailing these alleged irregularities.
However, the Election Commission, represented by senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, countered these claims, asserting that the affidavits contained false information amounting to perjury. The EC argued that the facts presented by the ADR were incorrect.
This prompted the bench to question the ADR's counsel, Prashant Bhushan, about the veracity of the affidavits. "After experiencing such false affidavits, how can we trust these? We are not in the business of conducting inquiry," the bench told ADR's counsel. The court emphasized that it expected a higher degree of responsibility from parties submitting evidence, especially in sensitive matters like voter list integrity.
The bench further noted that the ADR had not provided specific instances to support its claims. "We would have been with you had you given details of persons whose names have been deleted without intimation from the final voter list and whether their appeals have been disposed of without proper hearing. We could have intervened. Why not a single instance cited by you? It seems there is too much passion and little reason," the bench told ADR's counsel. This statement encapsulates the court's sentiment that the case appeared to be driven more by zeal than by concrete evidence and reasoned arguments.
Despite these concerns, the Supreme Court acknowledged the importance of ensuring that no eligible voter is disenfranchised. To address this, the court directed the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) to deploy para-legal volunteers to investigate the deletions. These volunteers will work with booth-level officers to inquire about individuals whose names appear on the deletion list of 3.75 lakh, in addition to an existing list of 65 lakh. The DLSA will also facilitate these individuals in filing appeals against the deletions, ensuring that due process is followed.
In response to the EC's allegations of perjury, Bhushan stated that the information in the affidavits was provided by a responsible person and suggested that the court could direct legal services authorities to inquire into the matter. However, Justice Bagchi countered that an inquiry would not rectify the underlying falsehoods if the person who filed the affidavit could not be located.
This case highlights the critical importance of accurate and verifiable evidence in legal proceedings, especially those concerning electoral processes. While the Supreme Court is committed to upholding the integrity of voter lists, it also expects parties to present their cases with a foundation of solid facts and well-reasoned arguments. The court's directive for an inquiry underscores its commitment to ensuring a fair electoral process, even while expressing reservations about the evidence presented by the ADR.
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is a mechanism to resolve disputes outside of court and includes mediation, arbitration, and conciliation. ADR is meant to be a faster, cost-effective, and socially inclusive way to deliver justice.
