Telangana High Court seeks ECI response on voter notices
Opposition parties appear to be widening business ties amid political uncertainty
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Monday directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to respond to a petition challenging the methodology adopted in issuing notices to electors based on an automated data‑matching platform, stated to be ECINet/ERONET. The notices were issued to initiate proceedings against voters over alleged discrepancies in the recent SIR enumeration forms submitted by electors. The court also inquired about the alleged deletion of electors’ names on the ground of insufficient documents provided after notices were served upon the petitioners.
A division bench comprising Justices P. Sam Koshy and Narsing Rao Nandikonda directed counsel for the Election Commission to obtain instructions and inform the court about the contention of ECI and others, while hearing a writ petition filed by S.Q. Masood. The petitioner alleged that the functioning of the ECINet/ERONET platform had not been adequately disclosed in the public domain.
Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of advocate on record Absar Ahmed contended that their challenge was not confined to individual notices but extended to the methodology followed during the SIR, including automated data matching through ECINet/ERONET. He argued that the process was being undertaken without adequate verification of physical records, proper application of mind by Electoral Registration Officers and transparency regarding the functioning of the platform.
The counsel also referred to observations made by Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan at an event at NALSAR on Sunday concerning the right to vote and the possibility of mass disenfranchisement. He further contended that votes were being deleted without issuing notices to the concerned electors.
The ECI counsel submitted that a notice had been issued to the petitioner following a mismatch in his father’s name between the current and previous electoral rolls. The bench sought to know what action had been taken after the petitioner appeared for a hearing on September 15 and submitted documents in response to the notice.
The petitioners also raised concerns over the absence of transparency after an elector responds to a notice, submitting that documents of a petitioner were collected during the hearing but there was no clear mechanism for placing further explanations before the authorities.
