The Supreme Court of India has firmly supported the Election Commission's constitutional and statutory power to carry out a nationwide Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. During Wednesday's proceedings, the court made it clear that it would not interrupt this crucial process while promising to address any irregularities brought to its attention.
Court Rejects Challenges to Revision Process
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi dismissed arguments questioning the justification behind the Special Intensive Revision. The CJI pointed out that not a single objection had been filed against the updating of electoral rolls after the process was refined following the apex court's intervention.
The legal challenge was initiated by RJD MP Manoj Jha, represented by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who questioned the constitutional validity of the SIR exercise. Sibal argued that millions of illiterate citizens struggle to complete voter enumeration forms, which he described as tools for exclusion rather than inclusion.
Citizenship Verification Debate Intensifies
Kapil Sibal presented a compelling argument against the current system, questioning why voters need to fill enumeration forms at all. He suggested that Aadhaar card details combined with self-declaration of citizenship should be sufficient for voter enrollment for individuals above 18 years of age.
However, CJI Kant offered a different perspective based on his understanding of India's electoral landscape. "In rural areas, elections are a festival. There, everyone is concerned about their votes. A maximum number of people participate, and everyone knows who a resident of the village is," the Chief Justice remarked, drawing from his experience.
Bihar Example Shows Minimal Ground Impact
The court highlighted the Bihar electoral roll revision as a prime example of the SIR's practical implementation. Initially, concerns were raised about crores of voters being deleted, but after the court streamlined the process, the deletions mainly affected individuals who had either died or migrated to other areas.
Justice Bagchi reinforced the necessity of such exercises by pointing to historical data issues. "It is a matter of record that in 2012 and 2014, the number of voters exceeded the total adult population. Is it not necessary to correct the electoral roll?" he questioned during the proceedings.
The bench's observations prompted Sibal to shift his argument from highlighting potential negative impacts to challenging the constitutional foundation of the SIR process. He emphasized that the burden of proving citizenship should not fall on voters and that booth level officers lack the authority to investigate citizenship matters.
With arguments scheduled to continue on Thursday, this case represents a significant moment in India's electoral history, balancing the need for accurate voter lists against concerns about citizen inclusion and rights.
