Supreme Court Raises Concerns Over Election Commission's Electoral Roll Revision
The Supreme Court of India, on Thursday, brought to the Election Commission's attention a significant omission in its Special Intensive Revision (SIR) order. The court highlighted that the order failed to explicitly state that the exercise was intended to address issues related to illegal immigration. This observation was made during a hearing where the Election Commission's counsel acknowledged the lack of express mention in the directive.
Court's Query on Citizenship Verification
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi scrutinized the SIR order, noting that it did not categorically specify that verification of citizenship was one of the primary reasons for conducting the revision. In response to the court's inquiry, senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing the Election Commission, confirmed, "It is not mentioned expressly." This admission underscores the legal ambiguity surrounding the commission's actions.
Defense of the Electoral Roll Revision
Despite the omission, Dwivedi vigorously defended the SIR exercise, describing it as a fair, just, and transparent process. He argued that the drive could not be deemed manifestly arbitrary and questioned the motives of the petitioners, including the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), who had approached the apex court challenging the commission's actions.
Dwivedi pointed out that none of the 66 lakh individuals whose names were deleted from the electoral rolls in Bihar during the SIR had filed complaints with the courts or the Election Commission. He criticized the petitioners' approach as a "roving and fishing inquiry" that should not be permitted. Additionally, he dismissed the petitioners' reliance on American notions of "due process," arguing that such concepts cannot be imported into Indian constitutional law. He cited examples, such as former US President Donald Trump's actions, to question the consistency of due process in the United States itself.
Transparency and Procedural Safeguards
Emphasizing the transparency of the SIR exercise, Dwivedi detailed the measures undertaken:
- Booth-level agents conducted thorough house-to-house verification.
- Over 5 crore SMS alerts were sent to voters to ensure awareness.
- The process adhered strictly to procedural safeguards to maintain integrity.
Previous Court Observations
On Wednesday, the bench had expressed concerns about the Election Commission's powers, stating that it could not have "untrammelled" authority to conduct SIR of electoral rolls. The court emphasized that such exercises must be governed by clear guidelines and procedures, including transparency and the principles of natural justice.
Chief Justice Surya Kant highlighted the serious civil consequences for individuals excluded from the voters' list, questioning why the process should not align with Section 21(2) of the 1950 Act, which governs the preparation and revision of electoral rolls. This underscores the court's focus on protecting citizens' rights while ensuring electoral integrity.
