The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the Election Commission’s authority to carry out the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, observing that the exercise supports the constitutional principle of conducting free and fair elections.
A bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, along with Justice Joymalya Bagchi, said the revision exercise could not be termed unconstitutional merely because it may initially appear exclusionary.
“The process that may initially appear exclusionary can, through appropriate safeguards, be rendered constitutionally compliant,” the bench said, adding that the SIR exercise met the test of proportionality.
The court also held that the Election Commission acted within its statutory and constitutional powers while conducting the revision exercise. According to the bench, the poll body derives authority for such exercises from the constitutional framework as well as provisions of the Representation of the People Act.
The judgement stressed that free and fair elections depend not only on polling procedures but also on the “integrity, accuracy and credibility” of electoral rolls.
“We are unable to conclude that the impugned exercise is a process resorted to solely for administrative convenience,” the bench observed, adding that the revision “advances the constitutional imperative of free and fair elections”.
Petitions Challenged EC’s Powers
The top court delivered its verdict on a batch of petitions challenging the SIR exercise conducted in Bihar. The petitioners, including NGO Association for Democratic Reforms, had argued that the Election Commission lacked powers under Article 326 of the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act, 1950 to undertake such an extensive revision of electoral rolls.
The pleas had also alleged that the exercise resembled an “NRC-like process” in which citizenship verification was being undertaken, a power they claimed rests with the central government and not the Election Commission.
The Election Commission, however, defended the exercise before the court, maintaining that Aadhaar cards and voter identity cards could not be treated as conclusive proof of citizenship.
The Bihar revision exercise had drawn attention after the Election Commission published draft electoral rolls showing that around 65 lakh names had been removed during the process.
Under the SIR notification, voters whose names did not appear in the 2002 or 2003 electoral rolls were required to establish ancestral linkage with a person whose name existed in those rolls.
The Supreme Court had reserved its verdict on January 29 after hearing final arguments in the matter. During earlier hearings, the court had observed that inclusion or exclusion of names from electoral rolls falls within the constitutional domain of the Election Commission. |
