Today, On 27th May, The Supreme Court held that the Election Commission did not exceed its statutory authority by conducting a Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. The Court delivered this finding while deciding multiple petitions that had challenged the SIR exercise in Bihar.
The Supreme Court held that the Election Commission (EC) did not exceed its statutory authority by conducting a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
The court was pronouncing its decision on a set of petitions challenging the SIR exercise in Bihar.
Adding that the procedure does not violate the Representation of the People (RP) Act, the apex court observed,
“It can’t be said ultra vires because the exercise is different from what is ordinary conducted,”
Also Read: Why No SIR in Assam? Supreme Court Petition Challenges ECI Decision
The Bench remarked,
“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. 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.”
The order said,
“SIR fulfills the requirement of proportionality and cannot be said to be manifestly excessive. It was instituted for constitutional purposes, namely the restoration of accuracy in the electoral rolls. The steps adopted by the ECI cannot be considered disproportionate,”
The petitions had argued that the Election Commission lacked the power under Article 326 of the Constitution, the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the rules framed under it to carry out SIR at such a large scale.
A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant had on January 29 reserved its verdict on the petitions, including the one filed by the NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR).
The top court had started the final arguments in the matter on August 12 last year. It noted that the inclusion or exclusion of names in the electoral rolls lies within the constitutional authority of the Election Commission.
The pleas argued that the Election Commission does not have the power under Article 326 of the Constitution, the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the rules framed under it, to carry out SIR on such a large scale.
The timeline for the SIR exercise in Bihar was also challenged by Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for ADR. He questioned the schedule followed for completing the exercise, as well as the basis and details relating to the 65 lakh voters who were declared dead, migrated, or registered in other constituencies.
The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar was carried out in the first phase. The poll authority released details of 65 lakh individuals whose names were removed from the draft electoral rolls published as part of the SIR exercise.
As per the SIR notification, voters who were not included in the 2002 or 2003 rolls were required to provide proof of ancestral linkage with someone already present in those rolls.
Click Here to Read More Reports on SIR