On January 16, in a petition seeking a common electoral roll for parliamentary, assembly, and local body polls, the Election Commission of India recently filed its counter affidavit while the matter was taken up for hearing, the Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner informed the Bench comprised of Justice K.M. Joseph and Justice B.V. Nagarathna that the petitioner had received the counter filed by the Election Commission of India on Saturday and, in light of the same, he sought three (3) weeks’ time to file the rejoinder. As a result, the Bench ruled - “Three weeks' time granted for rejoinder. List immediately after 3 weeks.”

The petition prayed, among other things, that a single electoral roll be used for all levels of elections; that Rule 18 of the Registrar of Electors Rules, 1960 be declared unconstitutional because it allows confirmation of objections without any inquiry; and that a single electoral roll be used for all levels of elections. instructions to the Election Commission to appoint senior civil servants from outside the State as special observers to supervise the electoral registration process; directions to remove the details of victims of COVID 19 pandemic who have died from voting register; award of remuneration to citizens who are stripped of the right to vote due to data deletion.

The counter-affidavit also claims that a voter's name is not removed from the electoral rolls without prior notification to the EROs. According to Rule 16, all claims and objections filed with the ERO are made public. The notice is displayed on the ERO's office notice board and on the website of the concerned Chief Electoral Officer. The notice includes all necessary information about the claimants, objectors, and persons objected to, as well as the date and location where such claims and objections will be considered by the ERO. The ERO conducts summary inquiry in all cases where the claim or objection has not been summarily rejected or accepted without inquiry. All interested parties are served with notice prior to this exercise, in accordance with Rule 19. In its counter-affidavit, the Election Commission of India states unequivocally that in most cases, EROs also have claims and objections verified by Booth Level Officers through on-the-spot local inquiries.
Aside from the statutory safeguards, the counter-affidavit claims that the ECI issues instructions from time to time to ensure that names are not deleted incorrectly.

Case Title: M.G. Devasahayam And Ors. v. UoI And Anr. 
Citation: WP(C) No. 1253 of 2021