SIR debate: Advocates hail apex court verdict upholding EC's constitutional powers
New Delhi, May 27
The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the Election Commission of India's decision to undertake a Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, with advocates appearing in the matter saying the apex court had effectively endorsed the legality and fairness of the exercise while rejecting allegations levelled against the poll body.
Speaking to IANS, Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay said, "The Supreme Court has dismissed all allegations made against the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process and the Election Commission, including claims of 'vote theft.' The Court observed that the SIR procedure is valid and carried out in accordance with the rules, law, and Constitution. We said that SIR should be conducted regularly, and there were around 20 petitions that were against SIR and questioned the unfairness of the Election Commission. The apex court denied all the allegations and put its supreme stamp on SIR."
"The Supreme Court said that people whose names are left out or cut out, this does not prove they are foreigners; they should submit all the documents based on which their citizenship will be confirmed..." he added.
On the Supreme Court's decision, the petitioner's advocate Ashwani Singh said, "Supreme Court has, in a way, appreciated the Election Commission for carrying out the SIR process in a very fair and impartial manner."
The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the ECI's decision to undertake a SIR of electoral rolls, holding that the revision exercise was within the constitutional and statutory powers of the poll body and was aimed at preserving the integrity of the electoral process.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi ruled that the SIR exercise did not violate the provisions of the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1950 or the rules framed thereunder, and held that the ECI was empowered to undertake such a revision under Article 324 of the Constitution read with Section 21(3) of the RPA Act.
Pronouncing the verdict on a batch of petitions challenging the legality of the SIR exercise, the apex court framed three principal issues for determination - whether the ECI had the power to conduct such an exercise, whether the enquiry under the SIR was founded on a legitimate purpose and satisfied the test of proportionality, and whether the procedure adopted violated the statutory framework governing electoral rolls.
Answering the first issue in favour of the poll body, the CJI Kant-led Bench observed that the SIR exercise did not supplant the statutory scheme governing revision of electoral rolls.
"When the statute itself authorises a special revision at any time, for reasons to be recorded and in such manner as the Election Commission may deem fit, the impugned exercise cannot be invalidated merely because it does not conform in every respect to the ordinary modalities contemplated for routine revision," the apex court said.
— IANS
Reader Comments
I'm glad the court clarified that people whose names are removed aren't automatically foreigners. That's a fair point - genuine citizens should have a chance to prove their identity. But the ECI needs to ensure the process is transparent and doesn't disenfranchise legitimate voters, especially in rural areas where documents may be missing.
Good decision! The Opposition parties were crying foul without any proof. If you have nothing to hide, why fear a revision of electoral rolls? The ECI has constitutional powers for a reason. Those who shout "vote theft" should first look at their own track record on elections.
While I support cleaning up voter lists, my concern is about the implementation. In some states, people have complained about names being removed without proper notice. The court said people can submit documents - but how many poor families have easy access to lawyers or know their rights? The ECI should set up help desks in every constituency.
This seems like a sensible ruling. The court's reasoning that the SIR doesn't violate the statutory scheme because the law allows special revision at any time makes legal sense. From an outsider's perspective, it's reassuring that India's judiciary is protecting the integrity of its democratic processes. Good to see the checks and balances working.
I think the critics are missing the big picture. Our electoral rolls have been bloated with duplicate and fake entries for decades. A regular SIR every year would actually make our democracy stronger. The fact that 20 petitions were filed against this shows some people don't want clean voter lists. Well done Supreme Court! 👍
We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.