The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the constitutional validity of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls being conducted by the Election Commission of India (ECI) in Bihar and other States, holding that the poll body possessed statutory and constitutional authority to undertake such an exercise for maintaining the integrity and accuracy of electoral rolls.
The Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi ruled that the SIR process advanced the constitutional mandate of free and fair elections by ensuring credibility and purity of the electoral rolls, which constitute the foundation of the democratic process.
The Court held that the Election Commission is empowered under Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 to undertake a special revision of electoral rolls in exceptional circumstances. It observed that the statutory framework permits the Commission to carry out such an exercise at any time for reasons recorded in writing and in a manner deemed appropriate by the Commission.
The Bench noted that the reasons cited by the ECI for initiating the SIR exercise, including the passage of more than four decades since the last intensive revision, large-scale additions and deletions in voter rolls, rapid urbanisation, migration and the possibility of duplication and inaccuracies in electoral data, constituted valid grounds for invoking the special revision mechanism.
The Court further held that the Election Commission is competent to examine issues relating to citizenship while preparing or revising electoral rolls, though only for the limited purpose of deciding whether a person is eligible for inclusion or exclusion from the electoral register. The Bench clarified that such scrutiny does not amount to a final adjudication of citizenship status but is confined to electoral purposes under Section 16 of the Representation of the People Act.
While considering the legality of the SIR framework, the Court framed three principal issues, namely whether the ECI possessed authority to conduct such an exercise, whether the process served a legitimate constitutional objective and satisfied the test of proportionality, and whether the procedure adopted violated provisions of the Representation of the People Act and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
On the first issue, the Court concluded that the SIR exercise was fully traceable to statutory powers conferred under the Representation of the People Act and was not ultra vires the legislative framework governing electoral revisions. The Bench observed that the special revision mechanism under Section 21(3) operates independently of routine revisions contemplated under Section 21(2) and Rule 25 of the Registration of Electors Rules.
Addressing the proportionality challenge, the Court held that the measures adopted by the Election Commission bore a reasonable nexus to the objective of preserving the integrity of electoral rolls and were accompanied by sufficient procedural safeguards to prevent arbitrary exclusion of voters. The Bench observed that the validity of such an exercise must be assessed in the context of its implementation and the safeguards incorporated during the process.
The Court noted that the Commission had provided multiple opportunities for participation, correction, verification, filing of claims and objections, and appellate remedies, thereby ensuring procedural fairness and compliance with constitutional standards.
The petitioners had argued that persons whose names already existed on the electoral rolls were entitled to a presumption of citizenship and that the SIR process allowed arbitrary deletion of voters without following the safeguards prescribed under Rule 21A of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
However, the Court rejected the contention and held that calling upon electors to furnish supporting documents during the revision exercise does not negate the presumption attached to existing entries in the voter list. The Bench observed that verification is a legitimate component of electoral roll revision and is aimed at reaffirming or correcting entries wherever necessary.
The Court also rejected challenges to the documentation requirements prescribed by the ECI. It noted that the Commission had continuously expanded the list of acceptable documents and had not adopted an exclusionary framework. The Bench observed that no material had been produced to demonstrate that the documents prescribed by the Commission were inherently inaccessible to electors.
On compliance with Rule 21A, the Court held that the SIR guidelines incorporated adequate safeguards, including issuance of notice, draft publication, inquiry in doubtful cases, reasoned orders and statutory appellate remedies. It ruled that the framework substantially complied with the procedural safeguards contemplated under the electoral laws.
The litigation arose from multiple petitions challenging the SIR process initiated in Bihar and subsequently extended to several other States and Union Territories, including West Bengal, Kerala and Tamil Nadu. Petitioners, including the Association for Democratic Reforms and the National Federation for Indian Women, had contended that the exercise could result in large-scale disenfranchisement and arbitrary exclusion of voters.
The Election Commission defended the exercise by asserting that periodic intensive revision was necessary to maintain the accuracy and integrity of electoral rolls ahead of elections.
The Court ultimately upheld the legality of the SIR exercise and declined to interfere with the broader revision process. It observed that grievances relating to inclusion or deletion of names from electoral rolls could be addressed through statutory remedies available under the electoral framework.
The post Supreme Court upholds validity of Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls appeared first on India Legal.