New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday said it would not tolerate any obstruction in the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in any state. According to a report by Live Law, the Supreme Court is hearing several cases related to the SIR in West Bengal, including a petition filed by Mamata Banerjee. In her petition, she challenged, among other issues, the categorization of voters in the 'logical discrepancy' list.
What was Mamata Banerjee's appeal?
The long-running mismatch between Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and the Referendum Commission over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls escalated remoter last week when she herself appeared surpassing the Supreme Court and appealed for intervention to protect democracy. Questioning the validity of the SIR process, the Chief Minister, in her petition, accused the Referendum Commission of India (ECI) of vicarial with political bias.
What were Mamata Banerjee's allegations?
She so-called that the way the voter revision exercise is stuff conducted will lead to the removal of millions of voters from marginalized sections of society. She sought interim directions to restrain the referendum soul from removing the names of any voters during the SIR exercise, expressly those placed in the 'logical discrepancy' category. In the previous hearing, the Supreme Court had issued a notice to the ECI on CM Mamata's petition.
What did the Supreme Court say?
The seat headed by the Chief Justice of India had said that spelling differences due to local dialects occur throughout India and this cannot be the understructure for excluding genuine voters. Addressing the Supreme Court, CM Banerjee personal that this is unduly well-expressed women who transpiration their surnames without marriage and people who transpiration their residences.
Alleging that West Bengal is stuff deliberately targeted surpassing the turnout elections, she said that similar voter revision exercises are not stuff conducted in northeastern states like Assam, and that repeated representations to the ECI have gone unanswered. Responding to these arguments, the seat headed by the Chief Justice of India unpreventable that the Supreme Court would find a practical solution. They moreover stated that the right of any genuine voter cannot be taken away.
