New Delhi: The Supreme Court, on Wednesday, upheld the legality of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls conducted by the Election Commission of India (ECI) and observed that it advances the Constitutional imperative of free and fair elections.
The Election Commission has the power to conduct SIR under Article 324 of the Constitution, read with Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the Rules made thereunder, the Court held, as reported by LiveLaw.
The bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi pronounced the judgment in the writ petitions that challenged the notification issued by the ECI in June last year to conduct SIR in Bihar.
The SIR process had a nexus with the goal of having free and fair elections, the Court held and observed: “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. In our considered opinion, the impugned SIR does not supplant the Representation of the People Act and the Rules. Rather, it breathes life into the constitutional mandate under Article 324 within the precise statutory contours provided by Section 21(3). Therefore, it cannot be said that the Commission has acted in excess of its statutory powers.”
Elections did not rest merely on the mechanics of polling but fundamentally depended on the integrity, accuracy, and credibility of the electoral rolls, which formed the foundation of the democratic process, the bench held.
The reasons recorded by the Election Commission, including the passage of more than four decades since the last intensive revision, large-scale additions and deletions over the years, and rapid urbanisation and migration leading to the possibility of duplication and inaccuracies in the electoral rolls, were clearly aimed at preserving that foundational integrity, the SC said.
It rejected the argument that the pr
ocedure adopted by the ECI was contrary to the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
The Court also rejected the argument that the procedure negated the presumption of citizenship of persons already on the rolls.
“Calling upon electors to furnish supporting material in the course of such an exercise does not amount to negation of the presumption. Rather, it reflects the procedural mechanism through which the Commission seeks to reaffirm or, where necessary, correct existing entries. The presumption continues to operate, but it does not negate the possibility of verification,” CJI Kant observed.
The bench rejected the argument that the procedure violated the judgment in Lal Babu Hussein, on the ground that the judgment only emphasised procedural fairness and did not foreclose verification. In any case, the presumption of citizenship is a rebuttable one, the Court noted.
The ECI has the power to examine the questions bearing upon citizenship for the purpose of including in the electoral roll, the Court held. However, the negative determination of the ECI does not result in a conclusive finding that the person is not an Indian citizen. The ECI’s exercise is only confined to electoral roll preparation.
“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,” the order said.
“The consequence of such a citizenship determination is correspondingly limited. It affects the individual’s entitlement to be included in the electoral rolls and thereby the right to participate in the electoral process. It does not, however, operate to divest the individual of claims to citizenship, nor does it foreclose adjudication of that question by the competent authority under the Citizenship Act,” CJI Surya Kant pronounced.
In cases where the Commission is not satisfied that a person fulfils the statutory conditions for inclusion in the electoral rolls, it would be incumbent upon the Commission to refer such an individual to the competent authority of the Union Government for adjudication in accordance with law. The Commission’s determination, being confined to electoral purposes, cannot assume finality on the question of citizenship. Any deletion effected on this ground shall therefore remain subject to the outcome of adjudication by the competent authority.
The Court also directed the ECI to forward to the Central Government the names of persons deleted from the 2003 electoral rolls over doubtful citizenship within four weeks.