DURING THE discussion on an appropriation bill for supplementary expenditure incurred by the state government, at least three opposition MLAs demanded action on those who filed the Form 7 that were filed during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) seeking deletion of names from the electoral rolls.Speaker Shankar Chaudhary, who pre-approved requests for three MLAs to speak on this issue, including Chaitar Vasava of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), and Jignesh Mevani and Amrutji Thakor of the Congress, ruled in favour of the discussion, with caveats, in spite of Cabinet Minister Arjun Modhwadia raising a point of order against discussion of matters related to the Election Commission.Gujarat saw the highest deletions among states in the second phase of the SIR, with over 68 lakh or 13.4 per cent voters being deleted from the rolls which were published on February 17.This exchange took place when “The Gujarat (Supplementary) Appropriation Bill, 2026”, was introduced by Finance Minister Kanu Desai, “to authorise payment and appropriation of certain further sums from and out of the consolidated fund of the state of Gujarat for the services of the financial year”, ending in March.Chaitar Vasava, AAP MLA from Dediapada, said, “When the work of making the electoral rolls in SIR took place and the deadline was extended to January 31, 2026, everyone did good work. On January 17-18, thousands of forms (Form-7) were deposited to delete the names of voters in all constituencies without any proof. Everyone tried to contact the people who had submitted these forms because everyone was worried about the thousands of forms for deletion of voter names. We also conducted checks and discussed these issues with various Collectors. Many of those whose names were written on the forms, were themselves unaware of who had submitted the forms in their name. My question is whether there will be action taken against those who attempted to waste valuable time and manhours during this important process.”Speaking on this issue, Congress’ Vadgam MLA Jignesh Mevani said, “We got the right to vote on the basis of the constitution written under the leadership of Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar. Is it right for Gujarat, that under pre-planned arrangement, a certain community of citizens are active in having people’s names deleted from the voter list? There are meetings conducted for it and within 5-6 days, there are complaints against 14 lakh people. Gujarat will never have fraternity and brotherhood due to these actions. It is expected of the government that it takes concrete action against those filing such false complaints, so that in the future – there are DNT people without any addresses – and if they have one document less, that their right to vote is not snatched away.The Gujarat government should take cognizance of this matter and identify these people, file offences against them and send them behind bars in Sabarmati Central Jail.”Story continues below this adWhile Amrutji Thakor of the Congress from Kankrej, also sought that the government identify those wrongfully filing Form-7 to try snatch the right to vote from citizens, he also raised the issue of necessary documents for the SIR and the matter of delay of rent paid to private persons whose vehicles are requisitioned during elections.AAP’s Gopal Italia, MLA from Visavadar, spoke on agricultural loans.In reply to Vasava, Minister Desai said, “Form 7 is filled for deletion of name and when there is a form 7, there is a field verification conducted, hearing is held and so the election officers are working according to regulations of the EC. So there is no question of administrative failure.”In reply to Mevani, Desai said, “Jignesh Mevani spoke about the government failure to investigate and take steps against those filing Form 7. According to the ECI regulations, form 7 for deletion, form 8 for relocation, elections officers carry out field verification through BLOs. Thus all the rules are being followed, there is special care taken to make sure that no voters names are wrongfully deleted from the electoral rolls. So there is no question of conducting an investigation or failure on part of the state government.”The Bill passed with a majority voice vote in the Vidhan Sabha.Story continues below this adHowever, before this discussion could take place, and just after the Bill was read in the House, Minister Arjun Modhwadia raised a point of order, saying matters related to election commission could not be raised in the house whose discussion continued for 45 minutes. In contrast, the MLAs were given two minutes each to speak on the actual topic under discussion.Mevani countered that while the EC related work may not be taken up, the work of state administration and state actors may be discussed In the house. Gopal Italia stated that this discussion of whether to allow it was moot since permission had already been granted by the Speaker’s office to discuss it.MLAs Umesh Makwana, formerly of AAP, as well as Shailesh Parmar and Amit Chavda of the Congress spoke in favour of allowing the members to speak on the SIR.Giving his ruling on the matter, Speaker Shankar Chaudhary said he had approved the MLAs to speak on the matter of SIR. He said, “When the requests (of the MLAs) had been brought before me, I deliberated that the independent work of the EC could not be discussed, but also that discussion could be done since the issue at hand was about passing the state government’s budget. I also checked for precedents and in FY 2015, during discussion on supplementary funds, Bhagwan Barad and Jagdish Thakor had spoken on it. Only then did I decide to admit the matter.”Story continues below this adThe Speaker added, “As to what can and cannot be discussed; the EC is a constitutional body and its work cannot be mentioned. SIR and other work done by the EC cannot be discussed. The discretion, decisions and partisan issues, model code of conduct, notifications, and the (election) results, may not be discussed in this house. However, those deployed in administrative work and conditions of the same, may be discussed in the Vidhan Sabha. But there’s a thin line, and there can be no allegations on the autonomous nature or independence of the EC. I have given my ruling. The point of order ends here.”