SC wants EC, others to respond to complaint about 46 lakh entries being deleted from Andhra, Telangana voter rolls

Hyderabad resident Srinivas Kodali filed a petition in the apex court alleging the EC deleted 46 lakh names from the electoral rolls in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in 2015 in an effort to ‘purify’ them. (File photo)

The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Election Commission and others to respond to a complaint about 46 lakh entries being suo motu deleted from electoral rolls in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in 2015.

There was a hearing before a bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice P S Narasimha, challenging the April order by the Telangana High Court that said it didn’t find any reasons to grant the relief sought in the Public Interest Litigation (PIL). While agreeing to hear the case, the bench said, “Issue a notice.”.

Additionally, the bench has asked the Centre, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, and their respective election commissions for responses. Six weeks later, it scheduled a hearing.

As a result of the EC’s purported efforts to ‘purify’ electoral rolls in 2015, Hyderabad resident Srinivas Kodali filed a plea in the apex court. He claims that 46 lakh entries were deleted suo motu from the electoral rolls in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana and that voters’ photo ID cards were linked to Aadhaar.

Besides seeding EPIC data with the state resident data hub, it said the poll panel allowed access to and copying of EPIC data by state governments.

According to the plea, the petitioner filed a PIL before the high court, worried that millions of voters wouldn’t be able to vote during December’s elections. The high court dismissed the PIL three years later, saying it was filed in 2018, when much water had flowed down the Ganges.

The plea alleged that the EC’s ‘purification’ of the electoral rolls using an automated process; based on Aadhaar and state government data; and without voters’ permission or notice, is a “blatant violation of their right to vote”. It claimed the high court didn’t consider that the EC used “undisclosed software” to identify duplicates, deads, and shifted voters.

Second, according to the plea, the high court didn’t think about the ECI linking voter records with sensitive personal information held in state-owned databases.

Millions of voters in the two states were denied their right to vote without due process and the poll panel’s actions threatened elections’ integrity. Basically, the ECI abdicated its constitutional obligation under Article 324 and its statutory obligation under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 by not preparing electoral rolls with government help or assistance or electronic databases under government control, according to the plea.