NEW DELHI: Continuing its submissions on the SIR issue, the Election Commission on Thursday told the Supreme Court that there was nothing manifestly arbitrary in its conduct of the SIR.
“There may be errors here and there, but the exercise is bona fide ” senior lawyer Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the ECI, told the apex court.
The SC was hearing a batch of pleas challenging the EC’s decision to conduct the huge exercise of SIR of electoral rolls in several states, including Bihar. After the SIR 2003, Dwivedi said that the CAA was amended, and a person had to prove that both of the parents were born in India, because cross-border migration had increased.
“The Amendment Act of 2003 was passed when Atal Bihari Bajpayee was the PM, there was complete support on both sides, no opposition.... It shows that across the board this amendment was desirable,” he said. Defending the entire exercise, Dwivedi stated that no individual directly affected by the SIR exercise of electoral rolls has come to court. “You see who are the petitioners?
Persons who come to court are leaders of political parties, private individuals and NGOs. The petitioners are only raising a hue and cry, saying they represent unnamed individuals,” he stated.
To a question from petitioners on whether the due process was followed in the SIR, he said, “Now even Donald Trump can go and suddenly lift the President of Venezuela and now wants Greenland – where is due process in that?”
On a lighter note, he said, “Now the US is also not applying due process.” To this, the court said, This expression ‘due process’ has been used sometimes by the courts without realising that it is borrowing from the US courts. Dwivedi, quoting the SC earlier observations, said, “even mylords have said here that the courts cannot sit on wisdom of the policy makers.”
Questioning the manner in which the pleas were filed in the top court in the case challenging the SIR process, Dwivedi pointed out that the writ petitions were filed six days after the SIR order.
“Articles were published in the newspapers, and then writ petitions followed. It has become a fashion to attack the ECI,” Dwivedi questioned and added that statistics could be tweaked to fit narratives.
The argument was inconclusive and would continue on another date.
Matter came up during challenge to the exercise
The SC was hearing a batch of pleas challenging the EC’s decision to conduct the huge exercise of SIR of electoral rolls in several states, including Bihar. After the SIR 2003, Dwivedi said that the CAA was amended, and a person had to prove that both of the parents were born in India, because cross-border migration was up. Dwivedi said nobody affected by SIR has come to court.