Telangana High Court
Srinivas Kodali, vs The Election Commission Of India on 21 April, 2022
Author: Satish Chandra Sharma
Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, Abhinand Kumar Shavili
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
WRIT PETITION (PIL) No.374 of 2018
ORDER:(Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
1. The petitioner before this Court has filed the present writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation challenging the action of the first respondent in employing software stating that the algorithm of which is neither transparent nor public in the matter of preparation of voter list in India, especially in the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, which has led to deletion of 27 lakh voters in the State of Telangana and 19 lakh voters in the State of Andhra Pradesh in violation of the procedure established by law.
2. The petitioner in the writ petition has alleged that lakhs of voters have been deleted from the voter list without granting them any opportunity of hearing and the same is in violation of principles of natural justice as well as it is in violation of statutory provisions governing the field. It has been further stated that non-transparent software cannot be allowed to take over the process of preparing and revising 2 the electoral rolls from the statutory bodies. It has also been stated that sharing of information relating to voters cannot be permitted by the authorities and the exercise of use of software for identification of duplicate voters in electoral rolls does not have a sanction of law. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"a. Declaring the action of the 1st respondent in employing software, the algorithm of which is neither transparent nor public, to carry out its statutory and constitutional duty of preparing and maintaining the voter rolls in India generally and Andhra Pradesh and Telangana in particular, which led to the deletion of almost 27 lakh voters in Telangana and 19 lakh voters in Andhra Pradesh in violation of the procedure established by law and declared by the Supreme Court of India, be declared as illegal, unlawful, arbitrary and violation of fundamental rights particularly, 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to make public the algorithm of the software employed by the respondents in preparing the voter rolls in the interest of justice;
b. Provide the data audit log of the date and time when each of the voters where deleted from the voter list;
c. Provide the source code as well as the algorithm employed in the software which has been employed by the respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 in conducting the exercise of de-duplication of the voters in the voter list;3
d. Direct a forensic audit of the software which was uploaded by respondent No.1 on an insecure FTP address;
e. pass such other order or order(s) as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.1 duly supporting by an affidavit of Deputy Chief Electoral Officer and it has been stated that Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) have been discharging their duties in relation to enrolment and maintenance of electoral rolls by using a software, which helps them to perform their functions and responsibilities under the Representation of People Act, 1950. Software is only a channel for EROs and the officials to maintain the database and it assists them in performing their functions. The software is a database maintained system and not a decision making system. It does not delete voters on its own and there is no algorithm in the software which can be used as intelligence for taking a decision by itself.
4. It has been further stated in the counter affidavit that a complete migration from State Electoral Roll Management System (ERMS) to the new system of ERO-Net has taken 4 place wherein the software identifies similar entries having similar demographic details. The software identifies the probable duplicates based on the various inputs given. Duplicates/multiple entries mean that one name is similar to names in another location or locations, which results in duplicate/triplicate entries and they are checked and corrected accordingly. Such entries are reflected under the title "Demographically Similar Entries" and are shown to the EROs and then the EROs follow the legal procedure to correct the entries in the electoral rolls. It has been further stated that the EROs are empowered under Section 22 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and under Rule 21A of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 to carry out deletions and corrections of names from/in the electoral rolls. The EROs are empowered under Section 23 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 to consider applications for inclusion of names in the electoral rolls and such an application is required to be filed under Form-6 as required under Rules 13 and 26 of the Electoral Rules, 1960. It has been further stated that in the year 2015, Election Commission of India has initiated "the National 5 Electoral Rolls Purification and Authentication Programme (NERPAP)" for purification of electoral rolls with the objective of bringing an error free and authenticated electoral roll wherein it was attempted to link voter Identifications with Aadhar card. The respondents have denied that Aadhar numbers were collected without the consent of the electors. The Election Commission of India has issued a circular dated 27.02.2015, which is on record. It has been further stated that in the light of the order, dated 11.08.2015 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in W.P. (Civil) No.494 of 2012 (Justice K.S.Puttaswamy (Retd) v. Union of India), the Election Commission of India suspended all further activities relating to collection/feeding/seeding of Aadhar number undertaken under NERPAP with immediate effect and instructions were issued on 13.08.2015 and the Election Commission of India is obeying the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India from time to time. It has been further stated that the Election Commission of India has corrected entries in cases of multiple entries, in cases of shifted electors, in cases of deceased electors and there is a detailed 6 mechanism provided under the Representation of People Act, 1950 read with the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
5. In the considered opinion of this Court, the allegations made by the petitioner that large number of voters are deleted from the electoral rolls is not supported by a documentary proof and the respondents have made an attempt to demonstrate before this Court regarding deletion of names in the electoral rolls. Even otherwise also, the Public Interest Litigation was filed in the year 2018 and much water has flown down the Ganges, we are in the year 2022.
6. This Court is of the opinion that in case if any individual is aggrieved by deletion of his name from the voter list, he does have a remedy to submit a proper application for inclusion of his name in the voter list and it has been brought to the notice of this Court that now online mechanism has been provided for inclusion of name in the voter list. This Court, keeping in view the circumstances of the case and in the light of the Judgment delivered by the 7 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in W.P. (Civil) No.494 of 2012 (Justice K.S.Puttaswamy (Retd) v. Union of India), does not find any reason to grant the reliefs prayed for in the present Public Interest Litigation. However, liberty is granted to individuals to submit proper applications if their names have been deleted from the voter list and to take recourse to the remedies provided under the statute governing the field.
7. With the aforesaid, the Public Interest Litigation is disposed of.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ ______________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 21.04.2022 pln