Supreme Court raised as many questions as it gave answers… Abhishek Manu Singhvi spoke on SIR case

The Supreme Court has accepted the constitutional validity of SIR. Senior Congress leader Abhishek Manu Singhvi held a press conference on this. He said that the court has accepted the constitutional validity but the Supreme Court has raised as many questions as it has given answers. On the issue of citizenship, it has been clarified that the Election Commission is not the final institution in this matter. In this, the decision making body under the Citizenship Act is the competent authority like Home Ministry etc.

Abhishek Manu Singhvi said, it has also been said that the Election Commission can deal with this issue only administratively. Now see its contradiction. It is also written in it that where the question of citizenship arises, the Election Commission will have to refer the issue to a competent authority like the Home Ministry. In such a situation his decision will be binding.

How to remove citizenship before taking the decision?

He said, if this is true then how were 7.5 crore people in many states of the country removed before taking the decision of citizenship? How were the voting rights of these crores of people taken away by an institution which does not have this right? If we read the Supreme Court’s decision from Para 97 to Para 101, it will be understood that the Election Commission had serious flaws and their improvement came only because many political parties and NGOs had gone to the court.

He said that there were 65 lakh deleted deletions in Bihar, publishing their names again and giving the reason for the same was possible because many political parties and NGOs had filed petitions in this matter. Political parties in different states were made parties by the High Court, then BLAs and paralegals were included. To teach and explain how to fill the form.

The court did not comment on the shortcomings of the commission

Singhvi said, this means that the Election Commission hastily launched a program with flaws. If this program had been allowed to run without the interference of civil society and without petitions from political parties and NGOs, there would have been flaws. This improvement was possible only because these organizations demanded it. But it is sad that the Supreme Court did not comment on the shortcomings of the Election Commission.