Voter Roll Revision Case Adjourned in Supreme Court Amid Contempt Row

A hearing in the Supreme Court on the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision of voter lists has been adjourned. The petition against the exercise was filed by Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi and other INDIA bloc leaders, and the court has given the petitioners time to answer the poll body's latest submission.

Chief Justice Surya Kant, heading a bench with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, ordered the petitioners to file a reply to the Election Commission's affidavit within 10 days. The poll panel may also file an additional affidavit within that period. The matter is listed for hearing after the Diwali vacation.

The petition, backed by Rahul Gandhi and 12 other opposition leaders, claims that a large number of voters were removed from rolls during the revision and that the process was riddled with irregularities. It challenges the method adopted for the revision.

Named as respondents are the Election Commission, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.

On October 15, the Supreme Court issued notice to the poll body and directed that this plea be tagged with other pending petitions challenging the SIR process in different states.

The court indicated that it would examine the conduct of one of the petitioners in the next hearing. It subsequently clarified that a petition filed by Sanjay Raut of the Shiv Sena (UBT) would be provisionally accepted only after he explains his conduct.

The directive follows a controversy over Raut's comments about the Chief Justice. Earlier, the CJI had declined to receive a memorandum on the SIR from Rahul Gandhi and Mallikarjun Kharge in a meeting, observing that discussing pending matters would conflict with the constitutional principle of separation of powers.

The Supreme Court Bar Association has also filed a criminal contempt petition against Raut and journalist Nikhil Wagle over their statements about the Chief Justice. On October 16, the court issued notices to both, asking them to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated.