Case Note & Summary
Background: The writ appeal arose out of the rejection of a writ petition filed by 21 appellants who were electors of the Shivajinagar Assembly Constituency. The writ petition challenged a newspaper publication dated 22.03.2023 that listed names for deletion from the final electoral rolls, alleging it was arbitrary and contrary to the Representation of People Act, 1950, Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, and an earlier court order. Facts: The Electoral Registration Officer had conducted revision of electoral rolls, and upon complaints, names of 231 persons were deleted from the final list of 15.01.2023. A list of 9195 'displaced' and 1847 'deceased' electors was prepared allegedly without proper verification. The Election Commission of India had directed adherence to proper procedure for deletion/addition after 01.01.2022. In a previous writ petition (W.P. No.3592/2023), the High Court by order dated 14.03.2023 directed the Commission to conclude the verification exercise regarding 8281 shifted voters and 1847 dead voters by 26.03.2023 in accordance with the Act and Rules. Contrary to that order, the respondents issued the impugned newspaper publication calling for objections. The appellants contended that individual notices were not served, no enquiry was conducted, and the publication was in English, which most electors could not understand. They relied on Supreme Court directions to prevent wrongful deletion and on the Electoral Manual 2016. The single judge rejected the writ petition but directed corrective measures for the first appellant. Legal Issues: (1) Whether the paper publication was valid under the Act and Rules. (2) Whether the respondents violated the earlier court order. (3) Whether the appellants had locus standi. Arguments: Appellants argued that once the final electoral roll is published under Section 21 of the Act and Rule 21A, no deletion can be made without following the prescribed procedure, including individual notice. They contended that the publication was ineffective and the proper course was to prepare a separate Absentee, Shifted, Dead (ASD) list. Respondents challenged the maintainability on the ground that the appellants' names were already retained and the petition was not representative, and justified the publication as part of the verification process. Court's Analysis: Not mentioned. Decision: Not mentioned.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the issuance of a paper publication on 22.03.2023 calling for objections for deletion of names from the final electoral rolls was valid in the light of the Representation of People Act, 1950 and Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 and the order dated 14.03.2023 passed in W.P.No.3592/2023 and connected cases
