Opposition Pushes for Suspension of Business in Rajya Sabha Over SIR in Bihar
Congress and AAP Move Suspension of Business Notice
Congress MP Randeep Surjewala and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MP Sanjay Singh on Tuesday submitted a Suspension of Business Notice in the Rajya Sabha to discuss the constitutional and electoral implications of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter lists in Bihar.
This move highlights the growing political storm around alleged “vote theft” and manipulation of electoral rolls in the state.
What is a Suspension of Business Notice in Rajya Sabha?
A Suspension of Business Notice is a parliamentary tool available to Members of Parliament (MPs) under Rule 267 of the Rajya Sabha Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business.
-
It allows MPs to suspend the listed agenda of the House to discuss an urgent issue of public importance.
-
While not explicitly provided in the Indian Constitution, it is derived from Parliamentary privilege and procedure under Article 118 of the Constitution, which empowers each House of Parliament to frame its own rules of procedure.
-
The final decision to allow or reject such a motion rests with the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha (Vice President of India).
In this case, the Opposition is seeking to use this tool to bring the SIR controversy into urgent parliamentary debate.
What is SIR (Special Intensive Revision) and its Constitutional Basis?
The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is a procedure undertaken by the Election Commission of India (ECI) to update and verify the electoral rolls.
Constitutional Basis:
-
The ECI derives its power from Article 324 of the Indian Constitution, which vests the superintendence, direction, and control of elections in the Commission.
-
The preparation and revision of electoral rolls is governed by the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (Sections 21–23).
-
SIR is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, but it is a procedural mechanism under the ECI’s plenary powers to ensure accuracy of voter lists.
-
It includes verification of voter addresses, removal of duplicates, and corrections, but is now being contested as a tool of alleged manipulation.
Rahul Gandhi’s ‘Voter Adhikar Yatra’ and Allegations
Rahul Gandhi, during his Voter Adhikar Yatra, alleged massive irregularities in Bihar’s voter lists:
-
1,00,250 duplicate or invalid voters were allegedly registered in Mahadevapura, Karnataka (as an example cited).
-
Instances of 80 voters registered at a single address.
-
He accused the ECI of deleting CCTV footage within 45 days to “destroy evidence.”
The Yatra will cover 1,300 km across 20 districts in Bihar, ending in Patna on September 1, with participation from senior opposition leaders.
Why is the ECI Asking Rahul Gandhi for an Affidavit?
CEC Gyanesh Kumar demanded that Rahul Gandhi either:
-
File a signed affidavit backing his allegations of “vote theft.”
-
Or apologise to the nation within seven days.
The demand for an affidavit is to ensure that:
-
Allegations are not made casually against a constitutional body.
-
Accountability is attached to political statements.
-
If false, Rahul Gandhi can be held liable under perjury laws (Sections 227–229 BNS for false evidence).
Why Rahul Gandhi May Resist Submitting an Affidavit
Rahul Gandhi’s resistance appears to be politically motivated for two reasons:
-
Strategic Politics – Filing an affidavit would legally bind him, while keeping it political allows him to continue using the allegations as a campaign tool without legal risk.
-
Selective Targeting Claim – Rahul argues that BJP leaders (like Anurag Thakur) have made similar claims without being asked for affidavits, implying bias in ECI’s approach.
What Happens if Allegations Are Not Proven?
If Rahul Gandhi fails to provide evidence and his allegations are proven baseless:
-
The ECI could initiate legal action for defamation or false statements under Section 499 IPC (Defamation) and Section 205 BNS (False Statement in Connection with Elections).
-
Parliament could also refer the matter to the Privileges Committee, as making false claims could be considered a breach of parliamentary privilege.
-
Politically, it may weaken the credibility of the Congress campaign on “vote theft.”
Political and Constitutional Implications
The clash has now escalated to a possible impeachment motion against the CEC by the Opposition — though legally, the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners can only be removed like Supreme Court judges (Article 324(5)), requiring a two-thirds majority in Parliament.
Such a move is rare and politically difficult, but even the threat signals the deep mistrust between the Election Commission and Opposition parties.
Comments
Post a Comment