The Supreme Court upheld the legality of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar and other states, and the Election Commission of India’s authority to conduct it, ending a legal challenge that had questioned the constitutional basis of the exercise, according to this report in LiveLaw.

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi on Wednesday delivered the verdict in a clutch of writ petitions originally filed in June last year, when the ECI first announced the SIR in Bihar. The court said, “SIR advances the constitutional imperative of free and fair elections… Free and fair elections do not rest merely upon the mechanics of polling. They fundamentally depend upon the integrity, accuracy and credibility of the electoral rolls, which form the foundation of the democratic process.”

Writing for the bench, the CJI held that the SIR could not fall simply because it departed from the “ordinary modalities contemplated for routine revision”.

“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,” he wrote.

“In our considered opinion, the impugned SIR does not supplant the Representation of the People Act and the Rules. Rather, it breathes life into the constitutional mandate under Article 324 within the precise statutory contours provided by Section 21(3). Therefore, it cannot be said that the Commission has acted in excess of its statutory powers,” he added.

The court had reserved judgment since late January this year. By the time it delivered the verdict, the ECI had already completed the SIR exercise in Bihar, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, and West Bengal, and the exercise continues in Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Rajasthan, and several other states. The court had declined to stay the process while it examined the legal question, letting the revision run even as it heard the petitions.

A broad coalition of challengers had filed the petitions, including the Association of Democratic Reforms, political activist Yogendra Yadav, and several sitting MPs including Mahua Moitra of the TMC, Manoj Jha of the RJD, KC Venugopal of the Congress, and Supriya Sule of the NCP (SP).

Their central argument was that the SIR amounted to an “NRC-like” exercise – a backdoor citizenship verification drive that presumed ineligibility and forced voters already on the rolls to re-establish their citizenship through documentary proof. 

On this, however, the court drew a careful distinction. It held that the ECI could “undertake a limited electoral inquiry into citizenship, but cannot finally determine citizenship,” reported Bar and Bench.

“Upon detailed consideration, we have come to the conclusion that, in view of the statutory requirement under Section 16 of the Representation of the People Act, the Commission, in the course of preparing or revising electoral rolls, is undoubtedly empowered to examine questions bearing upon citizenship. However, such an inquiry can only be undertaken from the limited standpoint of determining inclusion or exclusion from the electoral rolls and must be carried out with due regard to the presumption operating in favour of an elector whose name already exists on the rolls. It is within this confined statutory setting that the Commission assesses the material before it for the purpose of arriving at a determination confined to electoral purposes,” the judgment said.

Wednesday’s ruling settles the legal question in the ECI’s favour.

We take no ads, bow to no government or corporation, and answer only to you, the reader. This Press Freedom Month, pay to keep news free.