Hyderabad: A voter in Telangana was dropped from the electoral roll during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) without ever being sent a notice, and the High Court now wants the Election Commission of India (ECI) to explain why.

A division bench of Justice P Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda on Monday, October 5, directed the poll body to give reasons for the deletion, according to LiveLaw. 

The bench was hearing a writ petition filed by activist MQ Masood and another petitioner challenging the way the SIR is being conducted in the state, reported Live Law.

Of the two petitioners, one has been left out of the roll without any notice or explanation. The other received a notice, replied to it and attended a hearing, but has heard nothing since. 

The court asked the ECI to explain the first petitioner’s exclusion. It also asked what had happened to the second petitioner’s case after his reply, and said any action taken against him must be disclosed.

The ECI’s counsel sought time to take instructions. She said the notice to the second petitioner cited a mismatch between his father’s name in the current roll and the earlier one, and that he was called for a hearing on Tuesday, September 15. 

On the first petitioner, she said he could file Form 6 to seek inclusion in the roll, adding that he had himself admitted a mismatch in his name.

The bench pointed out that the first petitioner still does not know why his name is missing, since no notice was served on him.

The petition says the ECI is using an automated data-matching platform, referred to as ECINet or ERONET, to flag voters over “minor discrepancies” in their enumeration forms and start proceedings against them. It alleges that Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) are not verifying physical records or applying their minds, and that the ECI has not disclosed in the public domain how the platform works.

Senior advocate L Ravichander, appearing for the petitioners, told the court that the process used Artificial Intelligence and involved no human intervention in reaching conclusions based on voters’ replies. 

He said citizens are not told why a notice is issued, what changes are being made, or whether their explanation is heard at all.

Ravichander said that when the second petitioner attended the September 15 hearing, officials only took his documents and photographs. He was not allowed to submit anything beyond what was asked for, and there has been “zero transparency” since, he said. 

The court responded that he only had to produce the document. It added that if he had explained the mismatch, the authorities must have taken a decision.

Justice Koshy said orally that he too had received a similar notice. “I believe such a notice was also issued to me as well personally. I had responded. Query there was that my name was not in the…previous electoral roll,” he said.

The bench said that if the petitioner gives his explanation and still faces adverse action, he can approach the court. It asked, “What is the difficulty?” Ravichander replied that the petitioner was being made to go through a process that “screams of being unscientific”.

When Ravichander said the system may be a better process but is not one recognised by law, the court said orally, “Element of bias would not be there.”

Ravichander began his arguments by citing remarks made a day earlier by Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan. Speaking at the National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR) University of Law in Hyderabad on Sunday, October 4, Justice Bhuyan said the right to vote is an integral part of the basic structure of the Constitution. 

He said any process leading to mass disenfranchisement would be arbitrary and violate Articles 14 and 326. Ravichander said the Constitution does not recognise two classes of citizens, those with voting rights and those without.

Masood and his brother, Syed Waheed Uddin, filed the petition on Tuesday, September 29, South First reported. 

It names the ECI, the Telangana Chief Electoral Officer and the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) Commissioner, who is also the District Election Officer, as respondents. It seeks to stop proceedings against voters based solely on automated matching.

The case will be heard next on Tuesday, October 13.