The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, ruling that the poll body acted within its constitutional and statutory powers while carrying out the exercise. The verdict came on a batch of petitions challenging the legality of the SIR process, which was launched to identify bogus, duplicate and ineligible voters in the state.
A bench of Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi observed that the SIR exercise had a “direct nexus” with ensuring free and fair elections and said the Election Commission was empowered under the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act to revise electoral rolls.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
The apex court also upheld the ECI’s authority to scrutinise citizenship during the revision process. However, it clarified that deletion of a person’s name from the electoral roll would not amount to stripping that individual of citizenship. The court stressed that citizenship issues can only be decided by a competent authority under law.
The bench directed the Election Commission to refer cases of people whose names were deleted due to inability to prove citizenship to the appropriate authority for further adjudication. It said such deletions would remain subject to legal scrutiny and due process.
The SIR exercise was first launched in Bihar in June last year as part of the Election Commission’s voter roll cleansing drive. The poll body said the move was necessary to remove names of deceased persons, duplicate entries and “illegal immigrants” from the voter list to ensure accuracy and transparency ahead of elections.
The exercise, however, triggered sharp criticism from Opposition parties, which alleged that the revision drive was politically motivated and designed to favour the BJP. Opposition leaders questioned the timing and intent of the process, claiming it could disenfranchise genuine voters.
Rejecting these concerns, the Supreme Court said the procedure adopted by the Election Commission was fair and proportionate to the objective it sought to achieve. The court noted that given the scale of the exercise and the nature of the problem being addressed, the measures taken by the ECI could not be termed excessive.
The ruling is being seen as a major endorsement of the Election Commission’s authority to undertake large-scale electoral roll revisions in the interest of maintaining the purity and credibility of elections.
