On May 27, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi unanimously upheld the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, ruling it constitutionally valid under Article 324 and Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (RPA). The verdict, however, has drawn criticism over potential exclusion risks and accountability gaps.
Court's Rationale and Legal Basis
The bench held that the SIR process falls within the Election Commission's plenary powers under Article 324 to ensure clean and updated electoral rolls. Section 21(3) of the RPA empowers the Commission to direct a special revision at any time. The court noted that the SIR aims to remove duplicate or deceased electors, thereby enhancing electoral integrity.
Exclusion Risks Highlighted
Critics argue that the SIR process lacks adequate safeguards against wrongful deletion of names. According to election watchdogs, over 2 million names were deleted during the last SIR cycle, with many eligible voters unable to prove their residence due to lack of documentation. The court acknowledged these concerns but said that aggrieved individuals can appeal under Section 22 of the RPA.
Accountability Concerns
Opposition parties and civil society groups have questioned the accountability of the Election Commission in implementing SIR. They allege that the process is often opaque, with no clear timeline for resolving objections. “The Commission must ensure that no eligible voter is disenfranchised,” said a spokesperson for a leading advocacy group. The bench directed the EC to issue clear guidelines to minimize errors.
Impact on Voter Rolls
The SIR is expected to affect approximately 90 crore registered voters. The EC plans to complete the revision before the next general elections, aiming to purge 5-10% of ineligible entries. However, experts warn that hasty implementation could lead to mass exclusions, particularly among marginalized communities.
Way Forward
The Supreme Court has asked the EC to publish draft rolls and allow a 30-day public comment period. It also mandated that deletion notices be served personally or through registered post. The verdict balances the need for clean rolls with procedural fairness, but its success hinges on rigorous implementation.
