The Telangana High Court on Monday (October 5) sought the Election Commission of India's response on why a voter was excluded from the electoral roll without being issued a notice during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process undertaken in the State.

A division bench of Justice P Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda also sought to know what action had been taken in respect of another voter, after he submitted his response to the notice issued to him.

The court was hearing a plea challenging notices issued by the ECI against electors over "minor discrepancies" in their enumeration forms by deploying an automated data-matching platform for identifying, flagging and initiating proceedings against electors.

The plea claims that the process is without the authority of law, without proper verification of the relevant physical records, without due application of mind by the Electoral Registration Officers (ERO), and without disclosing the particulars, methodology and functioning of such platform named ECINet. / ERONET in the public domain.

Senior advocate L Ravichander appearing for the petitioners began his arguments by referring to Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan's statement yesterday and said, "None less than a sitting judge of the Apex Court faulted the methodology as an attempt to create two kinds of citizens in the country...from the persona of an Indian citizen the right to vote and be included in the voters list cannot be detached. It will like taking out the soul from the body. Indian Constitution does not provide with two class of citizens. Citizens with voting rights and citizens without voting rights. Any process which leads to wholesale disenfranchisement would be violative of the Constitution...". 

For context, on Sunday, Justice Bhuyan while speaking at an event in NALSAR said that the right of an Indian citizen to vote is an integral part of the basic structure of the Constitution, and any process resulting in the mass disenfranchisement of citizens would be intrinsically arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 326 of the Constitution.

Ravichander said that the petitioners are persons whose names have been excluded and that the matter requires judicial intervention.

The counsel for ECI sought time to get instructions. She submitted that one of the petitioner's had been issued notice. 

Ravichander however submitted that he is challenging the process by which SIR was being conducted, adding that the process employed Artificial Intelligence. He said that there was no mechanism of giving reasons why they are either issuing notice, what changes they are making or whether the citizen's explanation is being heard. 

The Court asked the ECI to inform why petitioner no. 1 was excluded from the electoral roll without being issued a notice and what had happened in the case of petitioner no. 2 after he submitted his response to the notice. It also said that if any action had been taken against petitioner no. 2, the same should be made known.

The ECI's counsel said that the notice provided a reason as to the mismatch between the petitioner no.2's father's name in current electoral roll and the previous one and called him for hearing on September 15.

At this stage Justice Koshy orally said,"I believe such a notice was also issued to me as well personally. I had responded. Query there was that my name was not in the...previous electoral roll". 

The court further orally said that if the petitioner is able to give them explanation to this, and then if there is an adverse action then maybe the petitioner can approach the court. 

"What is the difficulty?" the court orally asked, to which Ravichander said that the difficulty was that the petitioner was subjecting himself to a process which "screams of being unscientific".

The court asked if it should record that the petitioner refused to respond to the notice, to which Ravichander said that one of the petitioners had already responded to the notice. However petitioner no. 1 did not even receive a notice, Ravichander said adding that this is why the plea also challenges the entire SIR process and not just the notice and that there is zero transparency post submission of a response to the notice. 

He said that when petitioner no. 2 went for the hearing on September 15 for submitting response only his documents were taken, photographs were taken. He said that the petitioner cannot submit anything or any explanation other than what the respondents have asked for. 

"Where is the question of...any other thing? You only have to produce the document," the court orally said.  The court then asked the ECI's counsel that after the petitioner no. 2 submitted his response had the authorities taken any further course of action. 

"If he has satisfied and explained on the mismatch, you must have taken a decision on that," the court orally asked. ECI's counsel said that she will take instructions on the same. 

On the query regarding non issuance of notice to petitioner no. 1, ECI's counsel said that he can file Form 6 seeking inclusion. She pointed that petitioner had admitted that there was a mismatch in the name.

The court however orally said that petitioner no.1 does not know why his name is out as he has not even been issued a notice. The poll body's counsel said that she will take instructions on this as well. 

Ravichander then submitted that response is also needed on the process employed as there is no human intervention in coming to conclusion based on the responses given. 

"Element of bias would not be there," the court orally said to which Ravichander said that it may be a better process but today it was not a process recognized by law. 

The matter is listed on October 13.