Those hit by SIR deletions may see their other rights diluted: Prashant Bhushan
_vb_00.jpeg)
Kolkata (PTI): Senior Supreme Court lawyer Prashant Bhushan expressed alarm over large-scale deletion of names under the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal, saying those affected by it may see their "other rights diluted or withdrawn".
Backing his apprehensions expressed at a press conference here on Sunday, political activist Yogendra Yadav warned that the removal of the names of lakhs of voters through the SIR exercise may extend beyond electoral disenfranchisement and impact other identity-linked rights.
Those excluded from electoral rolls could be the first to face scrutiny in other identification systems, he claimed.
"Today, it is the voters' list. Tomorrow, questions may be raised about the authenticity of identity documents like Aadhaar. Those already struck off the rolls could be the earliest to be affected," Yadav said.
Nearly 91 lakh voters have been deleted from the electoral rolls in West Bengal following the Special Intensive Revision exercise in the state, according to data released by the Election Commission.
The poll panel is yet to officially announce the final voter base for the state after the roll revision process. From the available figures, however, the total deletion in the state at this point, based on the 7.66 crore electors identified at the end of October last year, stands at over 11.85 per cent.
Backing Yadav's concerns, Bhushan alleged the developments indicate a broader attempt at disenfranchisement, while stressing that the right to vote is foundational to all other democratic entitlements.
"If the right to vote is taken away, it opens the door for other rights to be diluted or withdrawn. What we are witnessing is not an isolated exercise but something that could fundamentally alter the relationship between citizens and the state," he said.
The senior advocate further claimed that earlier attempts to reconfigure citizenship frameworks had not yielded the desired outcome, and alternative mechanisms were now being employed.
"Constitutional guarantees cannot be easily amended, but indirect routes appear to be in play to achieve similar ends," he claimed.
Economist Parakala Prabhakar, taking a longer-term view of the matter, said the implications of the revision process could go beyond immediate electoral outcomes and reshape the very nature of citizenship in the country.
"There is a risk that India may gradually be divided into two distinct categories -- those who retain voting rights and those who are effectively excluded. Such a shift would strike at the core of universal adult franchise," he said.
The trio's remarks come ahead of hearings in the Supreme Court, expected early next week, on petitions challenging the SIR of electoral rolls.
Citing data, Yadav questioned the rationale behind the deletions, noting that West Bengal's electoral rolls had earlier shown near parity with its adult population.
He also pointed to "anomalies" in the process, claiming that while other states witnessed an increase in voter numbers between draft and final rolls, West Bengal stood out as an exception.
"This divergence suggests that something unusual has occurred here," Yadav said.
Alleging targeted exclusion, Yadav said that post-verification deletions appeared to have disproportionately affected certain communities.
He cited constituency-level examples to argue that the pattern of removals was not random. "If such disproportionate figures do not indicate targeted action, it is difficult to explain what does," he remarked.
Prabhakar described the upcoming hearing as a crucial moment. "The judiciary now has an opportunity to reaffirm and protect the foundational principles of the Constitution," he said.
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.
Nicobar Tribal Council Alleges FRA Violations in Great Nicobar Wildlife Sanctuaries
Sri Vijaypuram (Port Blair): The Tribal Council of Little and Great Nicobar has alleged fresh violations of the Forest Rights Act in the notification of three wildlife sanctuaries linked to the Centre’s ₹92,000-crore Great Nicobar Island project, even as the Calcutta High Court is set to hear petitions challenging the mega project over similar concerns next month.
The Union government had, in October 2022, notified three wildlife sanctuaries in parts of Little Nicobar Island, Menchal Island and Meroe Island for the conservation of leatherback turtles, megapodes and coral ecosystems. The move came after the government acknowledged that the proposed infrastructure project on Great Nicobar Island would affect coral colonies and nesting habitats of endangered species.
However, the tribal council has maintained that the sanctuaries were declared without consultation with the Nicobarese communities who traditionally inhabit and manage these islands.
In a letter dated April 23 addressed to the Assistant Conservator of Forests of the Nicobar Forest Division, the council reiterated its opposition to the sanctuaries and objected to the formation of a committee to determine eco-sensitive zones around the protected areas.
The council said its chairman had not been consulted before being included in the committee and was informed of his membership only a month after the committee was constituted.
The three notified sanctuaries include the Leatherback Turtle Sanctuary in parts of Little Nicobar Island, the Megapode Sanctuary covering the entire Menchal Island and the Coral Sanctuary spanning the whole of Meroe Island.
According to the council, Menchal and Meroe islands hold deep cultural and spiritual significance for the Nicobarese community, which believes the islands are inhabited by the spirits of their ancestors.
The council demanded that the sanctuary notifications be revoked and the eco-sensitive zone committee dissolved, alleging that both decisions were taken against the wishes of the indigenous community.
Meanwhile, Jairam Ramesh has written to Tribal Affairs Minister Jual Oram alleging violations of the Forest Rights Act in the process of obtaining consent for diversion of forest land for the Great Nicobar project.
Ramesh argued that consent should have been obtained through the Tribal Council representing the Nicobarese communities instead of through Gram Sabhas representing settler families. He also questioned how the government-controlled Andaman Adim Janjati Vikas Samiti could provide consent on behalf of the Shompen community, classified as a Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group.
He urged the Tribal Affairs Ministry to intervene and seek withdrawal of clearances granted for the project under the Forest Rights Act.
Earlier, Ramesh had also written to Union Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav alleging that environmental impact studies for the project were conducted in haste and without the detailed seasonal assessments mandated under environmental laws.
The dispute dates back to 2022 when the Andaman and Nicobar administration initiated the process for notifying the three sanctuaries before holding Special Gram Sabhas for diversion of forest land linked to the Great Nicobar project.
In May that year, the administration invited objections and claims regarding the proposed sanctuaries. Subsequently, on July 19, the Nicobar Deputy Commissioner certified that no objections or claims had been received.
The tribal council later wrote to the district administration stating that the notification process was carried out without ensuring that residents of Little Nicobar Island were informed as required by law. It alleged that no public announcements seeking objections were made in villages such as Bahua, Muhincoihn and Kiyang, whose residents traditionally use and manage parts of the notified areas.
The council said the Nicobarese community had protected the islands and wildlife for generations through customary practices and traditional belief systems.
It further argued that the sanctuaries would interfere with long-standing rights over forests and coastal areas. They noted that these areas are used for rituals, plantations, collection of forest produce, construction of huts and canoes, harvesting medicinal plants and worship.
In November 2024, the council objected to draft Island Coastal Regulation Zone plans, demanding basic infrastructure, instead of proposed eco-tourism activities in the sanctuaries. The council demanded better public restrooms, jetties, water facilities, pathways, and mobile connectivity.
The Nicobar administration issued a clarification in May 2025, stating that the sanctuaries would not affect hunting rights available to Scheduled Tribes in the Nicobar Islands. The council, however, rejected the clarification, stating that their dependence on forests and coasts extended far beyond hunting activities.
Earlier this month, a Bench led by the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court dismissed preliminary objections raised by the Union government against petitions challenging the diversion of forest land for the Great Nicobar project. The matter has now been listed for final hearing in June.
