'SIR breathes life into Constitution': Supreme Court upholds EC's roll revision exercise — top quotes

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court Wednesday upheld the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) decision to carry out a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, ruling that the exercise fell within the constitutional and statutory authority of the poll body and was intended to safeguard the integrity of the electoral system.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi held that the challenged SIR process did not breach the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, or the rules framed under it. The court further observed that the ECI was authorised to undertake such a revision under Article 324 of the Constitution along with Section 21(3) of the RPA.





Delivering its verdict on a batch of pleas questioning the legality of the SIR exercise, the apex court identified three key questions for consideration. These included whether the ECI possessed the authority to conduct the revision, whether the inquiry pursued a legitimate objective while meeting the test of proportionality, and whether the procedure adopted was consistent with the statutory framework governing electoral rolls.

Here's what the court said:

• “When the statute itself authorises a special revision at any time, for reasons to be recorded and in such manner as the Election Commission may deem fit, the impugned exercise cannot be invalidated merely because it does not conform in every respect to the ordinary modalities contemplated for routine revision.”
• Holding that the ECI had not acted in excess of its powers, the Supreme Court observed that the SIR exercise “breathes life into the constitutional mandate under Article 324 within the precise statutory contours provided by Section 21(3)” of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
• “Free and fair elections do not rest merely upon the mechanics of polling. They fundamentally depend upon the integrity, accuracy and credibility of the electoral rolls, which form the foundation of the democratic process,” the CJI Kant-led Bench said.
• “We are unable to conclude that the impugned exercise is a process resorted to solely for administrative convenience. On the contrary, we hold that the electoral SIR advances the constitutional imperative of free and fair elections,” the judgment said.
• “We are therefore satisfied that the impugned exercise meets the requirements of proportionality. The measures adopted bear a reasonable nexus to the objectives sought to be achieved, are not manifestly excessive and are accompanied by sufficient procedural safeguards to prevent arbitrary exclusion.”
• “Any verification exercise necessarily requires a structured framework. In that context, the prescription of a set of documents is intended to ensure administrative consistency and evidentiary reliability,” the judgment said.
• “Upon detailed consideration, we have come to the conclusion that, in view of the statutory requirement under Section 16 of the Representation of the People Act, the Commission, in the course of preparing or revising electoral rolls, is undoubtedly empowered to examine questions bearing upon citizenship."
• “It does not amount to a declaration that the individual is not a citizen of India. It merely reflects the Commission’s inability to be satisfied, for electoral purposes, that the statutory conditions stand fulfilled.”
• “In the event the competent authority holds that such deleted individuals are citizens, their names shall be restored to the electoral rolls,” the CJI Kant-led Bench directed.

The verdict was delivered on a batch of petitions challenging the SIR exercise launched by the Election Commission of India, which began in Bihar before being expanded to several other states and Union Territories, including West Bengal, Kerala and Tamil Nadu.

The petitioners had argued that the revision exercise went beyond the powers granted to the ECI under Article 326 of the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act, 1950. They had also warned that the process could lead to the disenfranchisement of genuine voters, especially migrants and marginalised communities who may not possess documents establishing ancestral linkage with earlier electoral rolls.

Defending the exercise before the apex court, the poll body had maintained that the revision was intended to maintain the purity and integrity of electoral rolls while preventing duplication and the inclusion of ineligible voters.

The Bench headed by CJI Surya Kant had reserved its judgment on January 29 after conducting extensive hearings in the matter.