The Supreme Court today asked the Election Commission of India to take corrective steps with respect to allegations of bulk Form 7 submission during its Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Uttar Pradesh.

Form 7 is filed by a person seeking the deletion of a voter included in the draft roll.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with an application filed in pleas challenging Uttar Pradesh SIR. The petitioners include Congress MP Tanuj Punia (Lok Sabha) and Samajwadi Party leader Arvind Kumar Singh.

During the hearing, counsel for the applicant submitted that on August 5, the ECI was directed to file a response in 2 weeks. Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, for the ECI, submitted that a counter-affidavit had been filed. He stated that on examination of the allegations, the Forms were found to be false and not acted upon.

"That's been addressed. We have found that Bulk Form 7s have been given. Our officers went, checked and cross-checked. They were false and we have not acted [upon them]" Naidu said.

The applicant's counsel stressed for judicial scrutiny, challenging the ECI's claim that none of the false Form 7s submitted was "received". He submitted that in 1 constituency, 32 Form 7s were submitted for one particular community, out of which 2 were signed by BLOs. He alleged that because no corrective steps were taken during UP SIR, the authorities were "emboldened" and a similar situation occurred in Karnataka and Telangana (where the CEO directed registration of FIR over the filing of bulk Form 7).

Ultimately the CJI asked the applicant's counsel to furnish to the ECI details of whatever issues remained pending. On receipt of the same, the Court said, ECI shall examine the factual aspects, take necessary corrective steps and file a compliance report.

"Ld. counsel for petitioner states that some more irregularities have been brought to the notice of the petitioner. He will hand over the ld. senior counsel for ECI by way of a note. On receipt thereof, led the ECI examine the factual aspects, carry out necessary corrections and file a compliance report", the Court ordered.

With regard to pleas challenging SIR in Kerala and Chhattisgarh, Naidu said that the SIR process was over and the matters had essentially become infructuous. Regarding Kerala SIR, a counsel sought extension of time, saying the verification period will get over today.

Initially, the CJI told Naidu that the period may be extended for a few days, as there is no urgency. However, Naidu replied that ECI could have entertained if there was any representation, but there was none. He also pointed out elections in Kerala were conducted after the SIR.

"24 lakhs are out of this verification", the counsel countered. The CJI then observed that from its end, ECI has completed the process, but inclusion of anyone left out erroneously can continue.

"You find out that these are the persons who could still be given a chance, bring to their (ECI) notice by way of representation. We will tell them to examine it", CJI said. Naidu pointed out that after completion of the exercise, even elections had been held.

The order recorded:

"[SIR in] Kerala is complete. However, ld. counsel for petitioner states that there are several persons who could not submit the enumeration form on account of shortage of time. Let the petitioner furnish details of such persons to ECI, which shall consider the same sympathetically and submit a report to this court."

The CJI later remarked that there was no need to extend time, as it (correction of roll) is a continuing process.

On Chhattisgarh SIR, it was pointed out that no counter-affidavit had been filed by ECI even though notice was issued in December. Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, for petitioners, contended that ECI could not simply call the matter infructuous because the exercise is over. "We are also submitting a note, there have been large-scale deletions. Let them file a comprehensive affidavit" he submitted.

The Court granted ECI 4 weeks' time to file a counter-affidavit, as well as a response to the petitioner's note.