news details |
|
|
| SC backs EC’s power to conduct SIR | | ‘Exercise breathes life into mandate for fair polls’ | | Early Times Report
NEW DELHI, May 27: Delivering a major victory for the Election Commission, the Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld its power to conduct a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter rolls and said the exercise “breathes life” into the constitutional mandate for fair elections.
In its ruling on the intensely debated issue, a Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant held that the exercise advances the “constitutional imperative of free and fair elections”.
The bench, also comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi, held that the poll panel was empowered under Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act (RPA) to carry out special revisions.
Disposing of a batch of petitions challenging the SIR exercise in Bihar, the apex court held that deletion from the voter list does not amount to a legal declaration that an individual is not a citizen.
The Supreme Court verdict led to sharp political reactions from across the political spectrum.
“…The Supreme Court declares SIR process legal and constitutional. It is clear that Rahul Gandhi and Congress opposed (the SIR) all through because they stood with illegal infiltrators, not with Indian voters,” BJP national spokesperson Pradeep Bhandari said in a post on X.
“SC’s Bihar SIR decision today puts a stamp of approval on ECI’s illogical, hurried & discriminatory practices that ultimately led to 27 lakh valid voters unable to vote after Bengal SIR & whose fate is still in limbo. Justice must be done & must also be seen to be done,” said TMC MP Mahua Moitra.
Psephologist and activist Yogendra Yadav, who is one of the litigants in the case, said he deliberately stayed away from court because the outcome had been apparent long before the formal verdict.
“The news is not that the Supreme Court has today declared the Election Commission’s SIR to be constitutional. The real news is that now in this country, the BJP will decide who can vote and who cannot. The news is that the part of the constitution of this country, which was perhaps the last pillar to save it, some parts of it have broken and fallen today,” Yadav said in detailed posts on X
According to the apex court, the credibility of the democratic process rests on the accuracy of the voter list.
“We are unable to conclude that the impugned exercise is a process resorted solely for administrative convenience,” the bench said.
Free and fair elections, it said, do not rest merely upon the mechanics of polling. “They fundamentally depend upon the integrity, accuracy, and credibility of the electoral rolls,” it said.
“The SIR breathes life into the constitutional mandate for fair elections,” the court said while rejecting arguments that the EC had overstepped its statutory powers.
In the first phase, the poll panel initiated the SIR in Bihar, where 65 lakh names were removed from electoral rolls on grounds of rapid urbanisation and large-scale migration over the last four decades.
The bench examined three questions — whether the EC has the power to conduct an exercise like SIR, whether the inquiry under the SIR is founded on a legitimate purpose, and if the procedure adopted was contrary to or in violation of the provisions of the RPA.
The top court agreed with the EC’s grounds for the SIR.
“Having examined the statutory scheme and the relevant constitutional provisions, we may now proceed to answer the important question formulated earlier by us, namely whether the impugned SIR is in direct conflict with the RPA and the Rules framed thereunder, and whether it supplants the statutory framework governing revision of electoral rolls. Both these questions, in our view, must be answered in the negative,” the verdict said.
It noted that 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 exercise therefore cannot be invalidated merely because it does not conform in every respect to the ordinary modalities contemplated for routine revision, the court said. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
