A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said that the petitioner can pursue his remedy elsewhere but not the Court through PIL.
The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a probe by a special investigation team (SIT) into allegations raised by Leader of Opposition (LoP) Rahul Gandhi of anomalies and discrepancies in voters’ lists in several elections.
A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said that the petitioner can pursue his remedy elsewhere, but not the Court through PIL.
“Pursue your remedy wherever you want,” Justice Kant said.
“Representation was given to the Election Commission but it was not considered,” the petitioner said.
“Writ Petition purportedly filed in public interest shall not be entertained. Petitioner is at liberty to pursue alternate remedies as available,” the Court stated while rejecting the plea.
The petition argued that large-scale irregularities in the electoral rolls had compromised the constitutional guarantee of free and fair elections. It claimed that thousands of duplicate, invalid and fictitious entries were detected in the Mahadevapura Assembly constituency of Bengaluru Central Parliamentary seat, undermining the principle of “one person, one vote.”
It was submitted that several voters were found registered in multiple constituencies under the same EPIC number, while some individuals appeared more than once in the same constituency with different identification numbers.
The plea stated that in Mahadevapura alone, there were over 40,000 invalid voters, more than 10,000 duplicate entries and thousands of voters with identical particulars such as house number or father’s name. Similar patterns were alleged in Maharashtra, where nearly 39 lakh new voters were added in just four months, and in Chandrapur where about 80 voters were shown at a single vacant address.
The petition also pointed to an FIR filed in Karnataka’s Kalaburagi after suspicious voter roll additions were uncovered. It further highlighted the case of a 63-year-old woman whose name was deleted despite her denying that she sought such deletion.
It was contended that such manipulations violated Articles 324, 325 and 326 of the Constitution and also infringed Articles 14 and 21.
The Supreme Court has recognised free and fair elections as part of the basic structure of the Constitution, it was submitted.
