A significant legal challenge has been mounted before the Supreme Court of India against the Election Commission of India's (ECI) decision regarding the revision of electoral rolls in Assam. The petition contests the ECI's choice to conduct a Special Revision in the state, instead of the more rigorous Special Intensive Revision (SIR) that is being carried out in Bihar and twelve other states and union territories.
Petitioner's Core Argument and Historical Context
The writ petition has been filed by Mrinal Kumar Choudhury, the former president of the Gauhati High Court Bar Association. Choudhury's argument heavily relies on a pivotal 1998 report on illegal immigration in Assam submitted by the former governor, Lt. Gen. (Retd.) S.K. Sinha. This historic report estimated that there were between 40 to 50 lakh illegal immigrants in Assam as of 1997, who had entered from neighbouring countries.
The petition asserts that the ECI's move is arbitrary and discriminatory. It highlights that while the ground realities in Assam are no different from the twelve other states undergoing SIR, the Commission has opted for a less stringent process. The petitioner has urged the Supreme Court to direct the ECI to conduct an SIR in Assam on the exact same parameters as was implemented in Bihar.
Key Difference Between Revision Processes
The central concern revolves around the procedural disparity between the two revision methods. Under the Special Revision ordered for Assam, electors are not required to submit any documentary proof of their citizenship, age, or residence for inclusion in the electoral roll.
In stark contrast, the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) mandates that electors must submit supporting documents to validate their claim for inclusion. The petition warns that without the SIR process, lakhs of illegal immigrants whose names are allegedly on the rolls will retain voting rights. This, it argues, could unfairly influence the upcoming assembly elections and exacerbate demographic imbalances, impacting the socio-political fabric of the state.
Alleged Contradiction in ECI's Stance
The petition further alleges that the ECI's November 17 order for a Special Revision in Assam contradicts its own earlier commitments. It points to the ECI's order for Bihar SIR issued on June 24 and an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court on July 21 in the "Association for Democratic Reforms Vs ECI" case. In that affidavit, the Commission had stated on oath that the Special Intensive Revision would be conducted pan-India.
Given this apparent inconsistency, the petitioner has prayed for the Supreme Court to quash the ECI's November 17 order for Assam. The final plea is for a judicial directive to the Election Commission to immediately undertake a comprehensive Special Intensive Revision in Assam, aligning it strictly with the Bihar model to ensure electoral integrity.
