BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday declined to entertain a public interest litigation filed by writer Devanuru Mahadeva, historian Ramachandra Guha, Major General (Retd) SG Vombatkere and former vice-chancellor Sabhiha Bhoomigowda, seeking directions to the Election Commission of India (ECI) to extend the timeline notified for each phase of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in the state, as revised on July 15 from one to three months.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice KS Hemalekha disposed of the petition, observing that the matter is pending before the Supreme Court and the question of timeline is in the specialised domain of ECI, and it would not be apposite for this court to determine the issue at this stage.
The court noted that the state has already submitted a representation to ECI on the grounds raised by the petitioners and it would not be assumed that the said representation is not considered. At this stage, the petition is premature, so the court declines to accept the contention of the petitioners, it said. As ECI stated that the issue is before the Supreme Court, it is not proper to consider the issues raised by the petitioners at this stage, the court added.
The senior counsel for the petitioners contended that they have not challenged the SIR, but questioned the feasibility of the procedure of timeline as it is not possible to complete the specified exercise in 10 days.
Contending that there are many discrepancies in the procedure, the petitioners alleged that there is no procedure to give notice, nor are there any objective criteria if the name of the electors is not found in the list. The procedural safeguard has not been followed, they claimed.
Advocate General K Shashikiran Shetty submitted that they had submitted a representation to ECI raising many issues, including the procedural safeguards and also the insufficient time granted.
The ECI counsel countered that this petition is not maintainable as similar matters have been seized of by the Supreme Court. Even high courts of Sikkim and Delhi have declined to entertain such petitions. Lastly, notices will be issued to the electors concerned as contemplated in the procedure if there are logical discrepancies and hear them, the counsel argued.