While disposing of the petitions filed against the SIR process of the Election Commission in Bihar, the Supreme Court said that the Commission has the authority to conduct SIR. He has not violated any rules. The court says that the Commission did not violate the Representation of the People Act by ordering Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the voter list of Bihar. Such an exercise ensured the accuracy of the voter list and also helped in fair elections. After this order, the way has been cleared for conducting SIR in the country.
Delivering his verdict on the petition filed by many organizations and people including NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), CJI Surya Kant said that important issues related to SIR have been raised in this group of petitions. This challenge to the intensive revision directed by the Commission, especially in Bihar, has basically arisen from the decision of the Election Commission in exercise of the powers under Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act 1950, in which SIR was directed in all the assembly constituencies of Bihar.
Analysis is necessary on 3 important issues
“The decision to initiate this process was taken in view of the substantial changes in the voter list in Bihar due to demographic differences, urbanization and large-scale movement of people. Therefore, in compliance with the constitutional obligation to protect the integrity of the electoral process and ensure free and fair elections, the Election Commission resolved to initiate this process from Bihar and then conduct the special vetting nationwide.”
While giving the verdict, CJI Surya Kant further said that after considering the arguments of both the parties and observing the developments, based on the arguments presented by the parties and the material on record, we have come to the conclusion that analysis of these 3 important issues is necessary.
“First, does the Election Commission have the authority to conduct a process like SIR? Second, is the investigation under the SIR based on a legitimate purpose and if so, are the measures adopted by the Commission proportionate to the intended objectives? And third, is the procedure adopted by the Election Commission in conducting the investigation under the SIR contrary to or in violation of the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950?
SIR helped in fair elections: SC
The Supreme Court says that the Commission did not violate the Representation of the People Act by ordering SIR in Bihar, because such an exercise led to purity of the voter list and also helped in free and fair elections. The court further said that we are also fully satisfied that the objective to be achieved by the SIR is directly linked to the constitutional objective of free and fair elections.
The Court further said, “Free and fair elections do not depend merely on the process of voting. They depend on the integrity, accuracy and credibility of the actual voting process, which are the foundation of the democratic process.
“The reasons recorded by the Commission, i.e. the lapse of more than four months since the last intensive revision, large-scale addition and deletion of names over many years, rapid urbanisation, migration and the resulting possibility of duplication and inaccuracies in the voter lists, are clearly directed towards maintaining that fundamental integrity.
Commission’s right to conduct SIR: SC
The country’s Supreme Court has ruled in its judgment that the Commission had the right to conduct the SIR exercise and it did not violate any statutory or constitutional provision. The motive behind all this is to have free and fair elections.
The Supreme Court also rejected the argument that this process voids the presumptive recognition of citizenship of already registered people. The court also rejected the common argument raised by political parties and NGOs challenging SIR that it is an exclusionary process.
Send the names of those killed within 4 weeks: SC
In its decision, the court further said that the documents prescribed to prove voter status are generally available with every voter and have a direct connection with the work of ensuring the accuracy of the voter list. Also, the court has asked the Commission to send the names of people removed from the voter list due to doubtful citizenship to the Union Home Ministry within 4 weeks, which will adopt a detailed process to determine their citizenship.
On the matter related to citizenship, the Supreme Court said that the Election Commission can conduct limited investigation on citizenship for the purpose of inclusion or exclusion in the voter list. The court also said that the Election Commission cannot determine the citizenship of a voter. The determination of citizenship by the Commission for inclusion in the voter list is not final as the removal of the doubtful voter from the list is required to be thoroughly investigated by the Central Government after giving adequate opportunity.
The Supreme Court also said that such a decision taken by the Election Commission will neither be final nor will it deprive any person of his citizenship.
Leave a Reply