Mother’s name deletion from voter list stalls son’s passport, Calcutta High Court steps in

Justice Krishna Rao

Passport for MBBS in Bangladesh

According to the petitioner, her son had been selected for admission to an MBBS course in Bangladesh. However, following the deletion of her name from the voter list, the authorities were allegedly not issuing a passport to her son, preventing him from travelling to Bangladesh for higher studies.

The counsel for the petitioner said that being aggrieved with the deletion of the name of the petitioner from the voter list, the petitioner has already filed an appeal before the appellate authority and thus prayed for a direction to the appellate tribunal for speedy disposal of the appeal so that the son of the petitioner may get the passport to go to Bangladesh to pursue his MBBS study.

After considering the submissions and the material on record, the High Court requested the appellate tribunal to decide the pending appeal within the stipulated period.

Supreme Court ruling

The Supreme Court had earlier upheld the constitutional validity of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls done by the Election Commission of India, observing that the process neither stands in direct conflict with the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Rules made thereunder, nor does it detract from the constitutional imperative of free and fair elections. It held that SIR is intended to secure the constitutional mandate of free and fair elections by ensuring that the roll on which the election rests is accurate and reliable.

The top court had also clarified that the Election Commission’s authority to decline enrolment or to initiate action for deletion does not amount to a declaration that the individual is not an Indian citizen.

“Where the material furnished by an individual does not inspire confidence or give rise to doubt, the Commission is within its authority to decline enrolment or to initiate action for deletion, strictly in accordance with law. Such action, however, must be understood in its proper perspective. It does not amount to a declaration that the individual is not a citizen of India, it merely reflects the Commission’s inability to be satisfied, for electoral purposes, that the statutory conditions are met,” the court observed.