SIR: 10 highlights from Supreme Court verdict

The Supreme Court's judgment upholding the legality of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in various States also saw the top court commenting on the extent of the ECI's powers and more..The Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi gave the ruling on Wednesday on a batch of petitions questioning the validity of the SIR exercise. Below are ten highlights from today's verdict in the matter. .1. ECI has power to conduct SIR under Article 324 and Section 21(3) of the Representation of People's Act"Once the statute (RP Act) itself carves out that special field of operation (authorising ECI to carry out a special revision of electoral rolls) the impugned exercise cannot be invalidated merely because it does not conform in every respect to the ordinary modalities contemplated for revision. In our considered opinion, the impugned SIR does not supplant the RP Act or the 1960 Rules. It rather breathes life into the constitutional mandate of Article 324 through the precise statutory conduit provided by Section 21(3). Therefore, it cannot be said that the Commission has acted in the teeth of an express statutory prohibition," the Court said. .2. Free and fair elections depend on the integrity, accuracy and credibility of electoral rollsThe Court held that the SIR furthers the goal of free and fair elections, which is crucial in a democracy."We are equally satisfied that, in its object and design, the impugned SIR bears a direct nexus to the constitutional goal of a free and fair election. Free and fair elections do not rest merely upon the mechanics of polling. They equally depend upon the integrity, accuracy and purity of the electoral roll which forms the foundation of the democratic process," the judgment said..3. Bihar SIR was backed by legitimate constitutional purposeThe Court rejected arguments that the Bihar SIR was resorted to solely for administrative convenience. It opined that the SIR only advanced the constitutional imperative of free and fair elections..4. SIR framework has adequate safeguards of notice, hearing, objections, speaking orders and appeal"The cumulative effect of the safeguards introduced, both by the Commission and pursuant to the directions of this Court, has been to strike a balance between the need for electoral integrity and the imperative of inclusion. The process, as it ultimately unfolded, provided multiple avenues for participation, correction, and redress," the Court added. .5. ECI's framework of document production to prove eligibility in voter rolls not arbitrary The Court rejected argument by the petitioners that the ECI's requirement that individuals should produce only certain prescribed documents to prove their eligibility for inclusion to the revised voter role was arbitrary. The prescription of a set of documents and the exclusion of others is intended to ensure administrative consistency and evidentiary reliability, the Court said.The Court also noted that the ECI has taken care to keep evolving and expanding the list of permissible documents"The expansion of the list, as compared to earlier exercises, also demonstrates an attempt to widen the range of acceptable proofs rather than to restrict it. The argument that the regime is exclusionary, therefore, does not commend acceptance in the absence of material to show that the prescribed documents are, by their very nature, inaccessible," the Court ruled.It clarified that the ECI should be reasonable while deciding which documents can be produced, considering the object of the SIR exercise. .6. SIR exercise not disproportionate or unreasonable The Court noted that the SIR was initiated to ensure that electoral rolls are up to date since it had been over four decades since the last intensive revision of voter lists. Since then, there have been large-scale additions and deletions of names over the years, rapid urbanisation, and migrations, and the resulting inaccuracies should be corrected. The Court went on to add that in this context, the SIR cannot be termed a disproportionate measure, more so since it involved various procedural safeguards. "Having regard to the nature of the problem sought to be addressed, the scale of the exercise undertaken, and the procedural safeguards incorporated during its implementation, the measures adopted by the Commission cannot be said to be disproportionate to the object sought to be achieved," it held. .7. Presence in previous electoral roll does not mean an absolute bar on re-verificationThe Court rejected an argument that if a person was included in the voter list during a previous verification exercise, he is entitled to be added in subsequent voter lists as well. The Court held that inclusion in electoral rolls creates a rebuttable presumption of validity in the person's favour, but not an absolute bar on verification.In other words, the inclusion of a person's name in a previous voter list does not bar the ECI from conducting a verification exercise again."While inclusion in the electoral roll gives rise to a presumption of validity, such presumption is rebuttable and cannot be construed as imposing a blanket embargo on the powers of the Commission to undertake a Special Intensive Revision," the Court said. .8. ECI can examine citizenship for limited purpose The Court held that the ECI can examine whether a person is an Indian citizen for the limited purpose of deciding whether that person should be included in voter rolls. “In the course of preparing or revising electoral rolls, is undoubtedly empowered to examine questions bearing upon citizenship. However, such an enquiry can only be made from the standpoint of determining inclusion or exclusion from the electoral roll and must be undertaken with due regard to the presumption operating in favour of an elector whose name is already borne on the roll,” the judgment said. .9. Deletion from voters list does not mean the person is declared a non-citizenThe ECI's limited inquiries into whether a person is a citizen for their inclusion to the voter list does not mean it has the power to decide on whether a person is a citizen of India. Where a doubt arises as to the citizenship of a person, the ECI can only decline to include such a person in the voter list. The decision on whether a person is a citizen remain with the statutory authorities. .10. EC must refer persons deleted from Bihar rolls on citizenship grounds to the competent authority within four weeks"The Competent Authority shall take the necessary decision in accordance with law, preferably before the next Parliamentary, Assembly, Local Body elections, whichever is earlier, after giving notice and an opportunity of hearing to the deleted individuals, if any. In the event the Competent Authority holds that such deleted individuals are citizens, they shall be included in the electoral roll. In addition thereto, all persons who are domiciled in Bihar and whose names have been erroneously deleted on the ground that they are absent, dead, shifted or in duplication may assail the decision of the Commission by way of judicial review," the Court added. .[Read Judgment]