Judgment:
Bilal Nazki, J.
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of an order passed by respondent No. 2 on 11th April, 2009.
2. Petitioner No. 1 is a political party, petitioner No. 2 is a Registered Trust, and other petitioners are citizens. Respondent No. 2 passed an order dated 11th April, 2009, which reads as under:
In continuation of the Commission's Order No. 3/4/ID/2009/SDR dated 6th April, 2009, the Commission directs that 'Ration Cards' issued on or before 2822009 shall also be permitted as an additional document for establishing the identity of electors at the General Election to the House of the People in the State of Maharashtra.
3. Earlier to it, an order was passed on 6th April, 2009. The order dated 11th April, 2009 is in addition to the one dated 6th April, 2009.
4. The grievance of the petitioners is that ration cards are not basically identity cards, and as such, ration cards should not be taken as proof of identity of a voter, as there are chances of mischief since a large number of ration cards are fake. In this case, the petitioners had also presented in the Court that some ration cards were manifestly not genuine. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that even otherwise, the ration card is never taken as proof of somebody's identity, and other Departments of the Government are also not taking ration cards as proof of identity. He submits that the Reserve Bank of India has issued directions that ration card should not be taken as proof of identity. Similarly, the Government of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs and Food and Public Distribution Department, as on June 22, 2001, issued similar directions. But, on the other hand, we have seen some documents, in which, if one has to apply for passport, the Passport Authorities consider the ration card as proof of residence.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the Notification, which was issued on 6th April, 2009, mentioned 13 documents for proving the identity of a voter, and all these 13 require a photograph, whereas, in the State of Maharashtra, no photograph is affixed on a ration card. Therefore, this has been done in order to facilitate bogus voting in the ensuing election.
6. Respondent No. 2 has filed a counter affidavit, in which it has stated that in terms of Section 61 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, the Commission is obliged to take measures and prescribe procedure for preventing impersonation of electors, and therefore, circulars are being issued from time to time. It submits that the ideal situation would be when all the voters have Elector Photo Identity Card (EPIC), but there are number of genuine voters who do not have EPIC. Therefore, such voters cannot be deprived of their right to vote. It was held that even after allowing identities to be established in terms of order dated 6th April, 2009, there may be genuine voters who may not be in possession of any of the documents mentioned in that order.
7. We have gone through the order, and we can also perceive that some of the voters may not be in a position to produce a document as mentioned in the order dated 6th April, 2009. It can be in anybody's knowledge that everybody is not supposed to have a Passport, a Driving Licence, Income Tax Identity (PAN) Card, Service Identity Card, Passbook issued by Public Sector Bank, Property Documents, SC/ST/OBC Certificate, Pension documents, Freedom Fighter Identity Card, Arms Licence, Certificate of Physical Handicap, Job Card issued under NREGS and Health Insurance Scheme Smart Card. The population, which will not be having such an identity proof with him may, on the other hand, have a ration card.
8. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated by the respondents that in the State of Maharashtra, 75% to 80% people have already EPIC. It is only about 25% of the population which will be required to prove their identity before they are allowed to vote in terms of orders dated 6th and 11th April, 2009 by a document other than EPIC.
9. At this stage, we will have to balance the interests of the voters, who are in possession of ration cards, but not in possession of EPIC or any other identity document as mentioned in 6th April order. Though there may be some bogus ration cards, yet it cannot be denied that vast majority of ration cards would be genuine; and if there can be a bogus ration card, there can be a bogus passport as well. We also find that the order was passed on 11th April, 2009, but till August 3, 2009, the petitioners did not complain. It is only when the elections were about to be held that the present petition was filed. We also feel that this Court would not be in a position to sit in appeal over the order passed by the Election Commission, as the Election Commission must have taken all the relevant factors into consideration before passing the impugned order. If we stay the operation of this order today, it will amount to either hampering the election process itself or it will amount to depriving the sizable number of voters from casting their votes.
10. Another relief claimed by the petitioners is that certain voters have been added into the Electoral Rolls on the basis of the identity established on ration cards. Therefore, the respondents should be directed to remove such names. No particulars have been given. In the absence of any particulars having been given with respect to the bogus voters having been added in the Voters' List, it will be difficult for this Court to grant such a relief. Even otherwise, this relief cannot be granted, as there is a procedure prescribed under the Representation of People Act and the Rules made there under to object to inclusion of a particular voter in a Voters' List.
11. For these reasons, we do not find merit in this PIL. It is dismissed.