The Supreme Court took up petitions challenging the conduct of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls initiated by the Election Commission of India (ECI) across several States. The Court scrutinized whether the exercise, aimed at updating electoral rolls, aligns with constitutional safeguards and statutory provisions, especially in the context of ongoing and upcoming local elections. The Court underscored a key observation that the process must not shift the burden of compliance unfairly onto voters, particularly illiterate or marginalized citizens, highlighting potential constitutional implications.
The disputes arose after the ECI ordered SIR in multiple States to ensure that only eligible citizens remain on the electoral rolls. The Kerala government filed a plea seeking deferment of the SIR until after upcoming local body elections. Meanwhile, other petitions were filed by political parties including the Communist Party of India (Marxist), the Communist Party of India, and Indian Union Muslim League leader PK Kunhalikutty, challenging the very methodology of SIR. Petitions regarding Bihar, Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal were also listed before the Court. Earlier, the Court had declined to halt SIR in Bihar and chose to monitor the process, following which the ECI announced the first-phase SIR in over 10 States and plans for nationwide implementation.
The Kerala government sought deferment of SIR due to impending local body elections. Political parties and individual petitioners argued that the process is being conducted hastily, without adequate notice or facilitation for citizens to comply. Advocates contended that illiterate voters or those unfamiliar with digital forms risk being excluded, and emphasized that the burden of providing documents or filling forms should not fall entirely on electors. Senior Advocates highlighted concerns of suicide and distress among Booth Level Officers (BLOs) due to pressure of completing the exercise, citing procedural inconsistencies across States, particularly Assam.
The Apex Court extensively examined the constitutional validity and execution of the SIR. Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi engaged with petitioners’ concerns regarding fairness, administrative feasibility, and voter inclusion. The Court acknowledged that while the ECI holds statutory authority to conduct SIR, its implementation must not be exclusionary or violate constitutional guarantees. Justice Bagchi noted that forms such as Form 6 are inclusionary, but the ECI retains authority to verify and validate submissions to prevent irregularities.
The Court considered arguments regarding Aadhaar-based verification and clarified that possession of an Aadhaar card does not automatically establish eligibility for electoral inclusion. CJI Kant remarked that while citizens must be able to assert their inclusion, electoral officers cannot rely solely on documentation without due verification, especially in cases of doubtful citizenship. The Court also recognized practical challenges faced by voters in remote areas, emphasizing the role of legal volunteers but acknowledging limitations given the scale of the exercise.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal argued that the current SIR methodology unfairly burdens citizens and risks excluding eligible voters, potentially impacting democratic participation. The Court balanced these concerns with ECI’s mandate, highlighting that procedural safeguards must ensure inclusion without undermining administrative integrity. The Apex Court noted Assam’s unique context, including foreigner tribunals, and reiterated that matters of citizenship and mental capacity must be determined by competent authorities, not BLOs.
The Top Court directed the ECI to file counter-affidavits in the Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal matters within specified timelines, with corresponding replies from State Election Commissions. The Court scheduled detailed hearings for these matters and emphasized that constitutional principles of fairness, non-exclusion, and reasonable procedure must guide the continuation of the SIR. The Bench also indicated sensitivity towards practical challenges faced by the Bar and administrative officers involved in the process. The hearings are set to continue, with the Court closely monitoring compliance and the protection of voters’ rights during the exercise.
Picture Source :