The Supreme Court sharply criticized the surge of publicity-driven petitions challenging the Election Commission’s voter list revision. CJI Surya Kant stressed judicial restraint even as key constitutional questions on voter rights and SIR procedures were debated.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India today heard multiple petitions challenging the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter rolls across several states. The exercise, aimed at maintaining accurate and inclusive electoral lists, has sparked debate over its scope and legality.
ALSO READ: BREAKING| Bihar SIR Row: Supreme Court to Hear Case on November 11
Chief Justice of India (CJI) directed the Registry not to entertain further petitions on the matter, noting that many are filed for publicity rather than substantive legal concerns.
“Many people are filing these matters just for publicity, I’m sorry to say,”
the CJI remarked.
The bench, however, welcomed members of the bar who wished to assist in the proceedings.
Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Raju Ramachandran appeared before the bench. While Sibal supported the CJI’s caution against frivolous petitions, Ramachandran emphasized the overarching constitutional principles at stake.
Ramachandran argued that the Constitution mandates the ECI to facilitate universal adult franchise (UAF). He stated,
“Age, residence, and citizenship are the only three qualifiers for UAF, all equal. Once met, the ECI’s role is to ensure voting rights, not act as a suspicious watchdog.”
According to Ramachandran, the SIR in states beyond Bihar is a continuation of the earlier Bihar exercise, which focused on migration patterns rather than identifying non-citizens. He contended that the SIR notifications could lead to voter disenfranchisement, as they allow removal from electoral rolls based on suspicion rather than established statutory processes.
“Questions of citizenship fall under the Citizenship Act, which provides a comprehensive mechanism for inquiries. The current process effectively allows the ECI to suspend citizenship,”
Ramachandran noted.
Justice Bagchi highlighted the ambiguity in the term “migrant,” noting that it could refer to domestic or inter-state movement. The bench discussed the social realities of migration, including workers traveling for employment and the vulnerabilities they face. Ramachandran clarified that while migration was a concern in Bihar, extending SIR to a pan-India exercise without clear justification could undermine constitutional protections.
Ramachandran stressed that Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, which permits SIR, has constitutional limits. He argued that the exercise must meet proportionality standards and cannot be applied arbitrarily.
“The challenged order doesn’t state any valid reason or legitimate state purpose to justify invoking Section 21(3). Reasons must carry real weight; recording them cannot be a mechanical formality,”
Ramachandran said.
Also Read: Why No SIR in Assam? Supreme Court Petition Challenges ECI Decision
The counsel highlighted timeline issues, noting that Chhattisgarh’s elections are scheduled for December 28, while other states with earlier elections were not under SIR. Justice Bagchi sought clarification regarding Assam, where the SIR procedure differs.
The bench will continue hearings on Tuesday.
READ LIVE COVERAGE
Read More Reports On Bihar Voter List Row