Supreme Court refuses to examine PIL over voter list duplication

Supreme Court refuses to address PIL on voter list duplication, directs petitioner to approach high courts for specific grievances

The Supreme Court on Monday (November 24, 2024) refused to examine a PIL seeking directions to the Election Commission and state election bodies to address the purported duplication and multiple entries in voter lists.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar said the apex court cannot issue omnibus directions to all authorities.

The bench, however, allowed the petitioner Rashtrawadi Adarsh Mahasangh, a registered political outfit, to approach the high courts with specific grievances and permitted filing representations with appropriate authorities.

The PIL highlighted the “menace” of duplicate voter entries, alleging it undermined the sanctity of elections in India.

Represented by advocates Avadh Bihari Kaushik and Umseh Sharma, the petitioner sought the court intervention to ensure cleaner electoral rolls, calling the current situation a threat to democracy.

The petition cited the 255th report of the Law Commission of India, which recommended a unified electoral roll and highlighted the 2021 amendment to the Representation of the People Act allowing Aadhaar-voter ID linkage.

Despite these measures, the petitioner alleged, duplication persisted due to lax implementation.

The plea therefore sought directions for the deletion of duplicate voter entries within 30 days and constituting a Special Investigation Team headed by a retired Supreme Court judge to probe and oversee the correction process.

“The present petitioner… wants to brings to the notice of this court, the menace of duplication and multiplication of voter-I -cards and entries in voter lists and such cases are not one or a few but in thousands or perhaps in lakhs all over India, which is polluting, maligning and defiling the most sacred and celebrated festival of Indian democracy -’elections’...,” stated the PIL.

While refusing any intervention, the court noted the targeted legal remedies remained available to address specific issues.

Published - November 25, 2024 06:31 pm IST