NewKerala.com

SC Reserves Verdict on Electoral Roll Revision Petitions Across States

The Supreme Court has reserved its verdict on multiple petitions challenging the Election Commission of India's Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. The petitions argue the exercise exceeds the ECI's powers under the Constitution and relevant laws. The Court issued directions for Tamil Nadu, ordering the publication of names flagged for "logical discrepancies" at local offices. The Bench emphasized the ECI must strictly follow these transparency directives in all ongoing SIR processes.

Key Points: SC Verdict Reserved on Challenges to Voter List Revision

  • SC reserves verdict on SIR legality
  • Petitions challenge ECI's constitutional powers
  • Court mandates transparency in Tamil Nadu SIR
  • Aadhaar included as valid verification document
2 min read

SC reserves verdict on pleas challenging SIR across several states

Supreme Court reserves judgment on petitions challenging Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in multiple states.

SC reserves verdict on pleas challenging SIR across several states
"The poll body would strictly adhere to these directions wherever the SIR process is ongoing. - Supreme Court Bench"

New Delhi, Jan 29

The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its verdict on a batch of petitions challenging the Election Commission of India's decision to conduct a Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls across several states and Union Territories.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi concluded hearings on the matter, while issuing further directions to ensure transparency in the ongoing SIR exercise in Tamil Nadu.

The clutch of petitions challenged the legality of the voters' list revision undertaken by the Election Commission of India, arguing that the exercise exceeds the poll body's powers under Article 326 of the Constitution, the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the rules framed thereunder.

The pleas questioned the ECI's requirement that voters whose names were absent from the 2002 electoral rolls (or the 2003 rolls in some states) must prove ancestral linkage to a person whose name appeared in those rolls.

The poll body had initially specified 11 documents for the verification of identity. However, the Supreme Court later directed the inclusion of Aadhaar as an additional document.

Most of the petitions were filed in June last year following the ECI's decision to carry out an SIR in Bihar. The exercise was subsequently extended to multiple states and UTs, including poll-bound West Bengal, Kerala, and Tamil Nadu.

Earlier this month, the CJI-led Bench had issued a series of directions regarding the SIR process in West Bengal, emphasising the need to prevent undue hardship to voters, particularly those flagged under the "logical discrepancies" category.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court issued similar directions with respect to Tamil Nadu, directing the ECI to publish the names of persons against whom "logical discrepancy" objections have been raised. It ordered that such names be displayed at panchayat bhavans, taluka offices and ward offices.

"The names of those who appear are allowed to submit documents in person or through authorised representatives within 10 days from displaying the list of logical discrepancy list, which will also contain a brief reason of discrepancy," the court directed.

The CJI-led Bench observed that the poll body would strictly adhere to these directions wherever the SIR process is ongoing.

- IANS

Share this article:

Reader Comments

P
Priya S
This is a very important verdict for our democracy. The EC must have powers to clean the rolls, but it cannot be at the cost of disenfranchising legitimate citizens. The directions for Tamil Nadu, to display names at panchayat bhavans, are good. Hope they implement it properly without any bias.
R
Rohit P
Why is this SIR only in opposition-ruled states like WB, Kerala, TN? Seems politically motivated before elections. The Supreme Court must ensure the EC works independently and doesn't become a tool for the central government. Jai Hind.
M
Michael C
As an observer, the legal challenge on the grounds of exceeding powers under Article 326 is fascinating. The court's balancing act between empowering the EC and protecting voter rights is crucial for institutional integrity. The 10-day window to submit documents is a reasonable compromise.
S
Shreya B
Good move by SC. In a country where many people migrate for work, asking for 20-year-old documents is unrealistic. Aadhaar should be the primary document now. Hope the verdict comes soon and clears all confusion. Every vote matters!
K
Karthik V
With all due respect to the Election Commission, the process seemed rushed and caused undue hardship, as the CJI noted. A more thoughtful, phased approach with better voter awareness would have been better. Let's hope the final verdict sets a clear, fair protocol for the future.

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50