The Election Commission has told the Telangana High Court that electoral-roll grievances raised by Hyderabad-based social activist SQ Masood and his brother, Syed Waheeduddin, have either been addressed or are being processed during the ongoing special intensive revision of electoral rolls.
The submission was made by senior counsel Avinash Desai on behalf of the commission before a bench comprising Acting Chief Justice P Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda. The court was hearing a petition filed by Masood and Waheeduddin over automated notices generated through the ECINet and ERONet applications, along with alleged data mismatches in the revision process.
According to the Election Commission’s submission, Masood had complained that his name was missing from the draft electoral roll and had submitted a representation. Desai told the bench that the commission had sent him a detailed reply, although the response was not included in the present writ petition and may have reached him late.
The commission’s counsel further said Masood’s name was absent from the draft roll because it had not appeared in the earlier electoral roll either. His name would be published in the final list if his application was accepted, Desai said, adding that a decision would otherwise be taken on the application.
In Waheeduddin’s case, the Election Commission said his name was already included in the draft list, but there was a mismatch in his father’s name. Since the name appeared in the draft roll, Desai argued that there had been no violation of the right alleged by the petitioners.
The case highlights how discrepancies in electoral databases and automated notices can become a legal and administrative issue for residents during a revision exercise. The ECINet and ERONet applications were specifically referred to in the petition, with the petitioners raising concerns over the notices and mismatched data.
Counsel for the petitioners, L Ravi Chander, told the bench that the petitioners had also filed a public interest litigation petition on a similar issue. That PIL had not yet been numbered. The bench observed that if the individual grievances had been addressed, the writ petition could be disposed of, while the PIL could be heard separately.
The matter has been posted for Thursday, October 15, when the petitioners’ counsel is expected to verify the Election Commission’s reply. The court will then consider the position of the individual grievances and the relationship between the writ petition and the separate PIL.
