Justice Dhingra Dismisses Opposition Protests Over Electoral Roll Revision

Justice Dhingra maintains that the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is a mandatory statutory obligation, not an attempt to disenfranchise voters. He contends that the process is essential for removing deceased individuals and verifying new registrations to ensure accurate electoral rolls. According to the former judge, political parties are weaponizing the commission’s administrative duties to create a narrative of grievance after failing to secure electoral victories.

Addressing the standoff between opposition MPs and the Election Commission, Dhingra criticized the refusal of leaders to send a small delegation for meetings. He suggested that by demanding the Commission travel to the Parliament Annexe rather than visiting the official headquarters, opposition figures are prioritizing public drama over procedural resolution. Dhingra noted that the Commission has established channels for handling specific complaints, rendering the mass demonstrations unnecessary.

Furthermore, Dhingra challenged recent comments by Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, who had warned that administrative actions leading to mass disenfranchisement are inherently arbitrary. Dhingra questioned the factual basis for these claims, citing the necessity of purging millions of outdated or duplicate entries from national rolls. He explicitly accused Justice Bhuyan of violating judicial ethics by commenting on sensitive political matters that could come before the Supreme Court, arguing that such remarks are inconsistent with the conduct expected of a sitting judge.