EC should have ordered probe instead of using offensive language against Rahul: Ex-CEC Quraishi
New Delhi, Sep 14 (PTI): Coming down hard on the Election Commission for its response on "vote theft" allegations, former chief election commissioner S Y Quraishi on Sunday said the poll body should have ordered a probe into Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi's charges instead of "shouting" at him in a language that was "objectionable and offensive".
In an interview with PTI, Quraishi said much of the terms used by Gandhi while making the allegations such as likening them to a "hydrogen bomb" were "political rhetoric" but asserted that the complaints which he was raising need to be investigated in detail.
The former chief election commissioner slammed the Election Commission (EC) over the manner in which it carried out the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, and said it is not only "opening a pandora's box" but the poll body has put its hand in the "hornet's nest" which will hurt it.
The EC has rejected all the allegations of "vote theft" in the past. It has also all along maintained that the SIR of electoral rolls in Bihar will cleanse the voters' list of ineligible people, duplicate entries and include those eligible as per law to vote.
"You know when I hear any criticism of the EC, I feel very concerned and very hurt not only as a citizen of India but also because having been the CEC myself, I have also laid a brick or two in that institution," Quraishi told PTI ahead of the launch of his new book 'Democracy's Heartland' published by Juggernaut Books.
"When I see that institution under attack or weakened in any way I feel concerned and the EC itself has to do introspection and has to feel concerned. It is up to them to stand up to all the forces and the pressures that may be influencing their decisions," said Quraishi, who was the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) between July 30, 2010 and June 10, 2012.
"They have to win the confidence of the people - you need the confidence of the opposition parties. For me, I always gave preference to the opposition parties because they are the underdogs," he said.
Quraishi opined that the party in power doesn't need as much pampering as the opposition does because the latter is out of power.
"So the instruction generally to my staff (when I was the CEC) was to throw the doors open, if they (opposition) want an appointment, give them immediately, listen to them, talk to them, if they want some small favour, do it if it is not at the cost of somebody else," he said.
Here the opposition has to go to the Supreme Court every now and then and in fact, 23 parties have had to say they are not getting an appointment and nobody is listening to them.
Specifically responding to Quraishi's remarks calling for giving opposition parties a hearing whenever they ask for it, an EC functionary said, "We are holding regular meetings with the political parties.I think at no other time this has been in such a structured manner."
Quraishi argued that the EC should have called for a probe into Gandhi's allegations instead of asking him to submit an affidavit.
"Rahul Gandhi is the Leader of Opposition (LoP) after all, don't shout at him the way the EC did. I think it is not like the EC that we have known. He is after all the LoP, he is not a man on the street. He is representing millions of people, he is voicing the opinion of millions of people and to say to him, 'give an affidavit otherwise we will do this and do that', the body language and the language used is both objectionable and offensive," Quraishi said.
"I have often said, suppose they (opposition) also turn around and say that 'ok you are coming up with a new roll, give an affidavit that it is mistake free. And if there is a mistake you will be held criminally liable'. Can you think of that situation?" he said.
Asserting that the EC should have ordered a probe into the allegations, Quraishi said not just the LoP but if anybody had complained, the normal practice was to immediately order a probe.
"Not only we (EC) have to be fair but we have to appear to be fair. The probe brings out the facts. So instead of the way the EC responded, the probe was the right thing to do and they missed an opportunity," he said.
His remarks come after Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar said at a press conference here last month that Gandhi should either give a declaration under oath within seven days on his allegations of irregularities in the voters list, else his 'vote theft' claims would be rendered baseless and invalid.
Levelling allegations of "vote chori", Gandhi had, through a presentation at a press conference, cited data from the 2024 Lok Sabha polls to claim that over 1 lakh votes were "stolen" in Mahadevapura assembly segment in Karnataka through five types of manipulation. He alleged similar irregularities in other states.
Gandhi also carried out a 'Voter Adhikar Yatra' across Bihar against the SIR of electoral rolls, alleging collusion between the BJP and the EC for "stealing votes".
Asked about Gandhi's claim that he will soon come up with a "hydrogen bomb" of revelations on "vote chori", Quraishi said the Leader of the Opposition has used these kinds of terms and most of it is "political rhetoric" which has to be taken as such only.
"But at the same time, if there are serious issues, serious complaints which he is raising, they need to be investigated in detail not only to the satisfaction of the LoP but of the whole nation, the whole nation is watching," he said.
On whether the people's confidence on the electoral process had been shaken, Quraishi answered in the affirmative.
Questioning the logic behind excluding Electors Photo Identity Card (EPIC) from the list of documents that could be provided for inclusion in the voters list, Quraishi said EPIC is issued by the EC itself and not recognising it has very serious implications.
"Remember it has taken the EC 30 years to reach 99 per cent or 98 per cent of the people, to bring the electoral roll to this level of perfection. One per cent is updated every year by door-to-door summary inquiry' - That is the normal thing. So to throw the existing roll in the dustbin and to start all over again. You are trying to do in three months what we had done in 30 years," Quraishi said.
"So, it is buying trouble. It is not only opening a pandora's box but I think the EC has put its hand in the hornet's nest and it is going to hurt them. Of course the Supreme Court has already asked to use Aadhaar and because of the pressure of the top court, the EC has started using Aadhaar," he said.
Quraishi said he is surprised the Supreme Court did not follow up on EPIC which is the EC's own creation.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Ordinance issued to increase number of Supreme Court judges from 34 to 38
New Delhi (PTI): The government has promulgated an ordinance to increase the strength of the Supreme Court from the present 34 judges to 38, including the Chief Justice of India.
The law ministry notified the ordinance on Saturday, which amended the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956, to increase the sanctioned strength of the top court.
So far, the sanctioned strength of the top court was 34, including the Chief Justice of India (CJI). Now, the number of judges has been increased by four, taking the sanctioned strength to 38.
The top court will now have 37 judges, other than the CJI.
With the apex court having two vacancies at present, and the ordinance coming into force immediately, the Supreme Court Collegium will now have to recommend six names for appointment as judges in the top court.
A bill will be brought in the Monsoon Session of Parliament to convert the ordinance – an executive order – into a law passed by Parliament.
The Union Cabinet had cleared a draft bill on May 5 to increase the number of apex court judges.
The strength of the Supreme Court was last increased from 30 to 33 (excluding the CJI) in 2019.
The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, as originally enacted in 1956, put the maximum number of judges (excluding the CJI) at 10.
This number was increased to 13 by the Supreme Court (Number of Judges), Amendment Act, 1960, and to 17 by another amendment to the law.
The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 1986, augmented the strength of judges from 17 to 25, excluding the CJI.
A fresh amendment in 2009 further increased the strength from 25 to 30.
Article 124(3) of the Constitution lists the qualifications required to become a Supreme Court judge.
An Indian citizen who has either served as a high court judge for at least five years, or as an advocate for 10 years, or is a distinguished jurist, can be appointed to the top court.
The strength of the Supreme Court is increased based on the recommendations of the CJI, who writes to the Union law minister. After consulting the finance ministry, the Department of Justice under the law ministry moves the Cabinet with a draft bill.
