The Supreme Court addresses claims of mass voter deletions during the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR), noting it is difficult to act on media reports but recognizing The Indian Express as a credible source.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday began hearing a batch of petitions challenging the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls being undertaken across multiple States. The exercise, aimed at updating voter lists to ensure accuracy and inclusiveness, has come under scrutiny amid allegations of large-scale deletions and procedural irregularities.
At the outset, counsel appearing in the Assam matter urged the Court to grant at least 15 minutes for an urgent hearing, warning that any delay could render the challenge infructuous. Responding to this, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) assured parties that adequate time would be provided.
Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the respondents, informed the Court that nearly 300 pages of documents had been received in the Assam case as recently as Saturday. He sought time to file a detailed response, to which the CJI responded:
“You take as much time you need.”
Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan drew the Court’s attention to a report published in The Indian Express, which claimed that over 10 lakh voters in Bihar had received notices for deletion of their names during the SIR process. According to the report, the notices bore the digital signature of the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) and appeared to have been issued in a centralized manner.
Dwivedi objected to reliance on newspaper reports, stating that any such claims should be placed on affidavit and that the respondents would not respond to media reports alone.
The CJI, however, struck a balanced note, observing:
“If we start getting swayed by newspaper reports and seek replies, it becomes difficult. At the same time, The Indian Express is a credible and respected newspaper. They have responsible reporters, and such reports are usually based on information from reliable sources.”
Bhushan argued that the issue was serious and could be easily clarified through an affidavit. He contended that under the Representation of the People Act, only the ERO has the authority to issue deletion notices, and large-scale centralized issuance could be unlawful.
Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi focused on the constitutional implications of the SIR, particularly in States with vulnerable populations. Referring to Tamil Nadu, he pointed out that nearly nine out of 37 districts, including the Nilgiris, have significant tribal populations, many of whom are seasonal migrants.
“These communities migrate for work, including to Kerala during the Sabarimala season, and return thereafter,”
Sondhi said, cautioning that rigid verification requirements could disproportionately affect such groups.
He argued that even if the SIR notification appears “facially neutral,” its disproportionate impact on marginalised communities could violate Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality before law and prohibit discrimination.
Sondhi further warned that Electoral Registration Officers were effectively engaging in individual adjudication, which could extend into the determination of citizenship.
“If this Court concludes that the power of verification is extending to the determination of citizenship, it would run afoul of Article 14 and be contrary to this Court’s judgment in the Aadhaar case,”
he submitted.
He also emphasized that the requirements under Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act must be interpreted in a constituency-specific manner, especially when recording reasons for deletions.
The Supreme Court indicated that Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi would begin arguments on behalf of the respondents on Wednesday.
READ LIVE COVERAGE
Read More Reports On Special Intensive Revision
