New Delhi, Nov 27 (UNI) The Supreme Court today said that the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar may need a clear justification, noting that this was not a routine update of voter lists.
A Bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, was hearing petitions challenging the validity of the SIR and seeking a stay on the process.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for PUCL and several political parties, argued that the SIR process has no backing in law.
He said that such a large-scale exercise cannot be introduced by the Election Commission of India (ECI) without proper rules.
“This is an en masse exercise. Article 324 does not give such powers. The Commission cannot act like a law-maker,” Singhvi submitted.
Responding, the CJI observed, “Going by your argument, the ECI will never have the power to conduct SIR. This is not routine updation. If a special revision is being done, the process may need to be justified.”
At the start of the hearing, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal questioned whether Booth Level Officers (BLOs) could assess if a voter is of “unsound mind”.
“A school teacher appointed as BLO cannot decide this. Disqualification must come under the Representation of the People Act, and unsoundness of mind must be declared by a court,” Sibal argued.
Justice Bagchi said the Court must check whether the notice issued for the SIR fits within the scheme of the election laws.
Sibal further warned that the burden on voters could become unreasonable, “If my father’s name is missing from the rolls, how will I ever prove it? Under which power is this being done?”
The CJI replied that voters must also ensure their details are correct. “If your father’s name is missing and you also did not act, perhaps you missed the bus,” he remarked.
Singhvi later stressed that the Constitution does not allow the Election Commission to make substantive changes through administrative orders.
“The ECI is not a third chamber of Parliament. It cannot bring new conditions for voters that the law does not provide,” he said.
The CJI also posed a hypothetical: “If Parliament says tomorrow that fundamental rights can be taken away, can that be done?”
Singhvi replied, “No. There are limits. Mass changes without legal backing cannot be allowed.”
Before adjourning the matter to December 2, the CJI said the Court would independently examine the legality of the SIR process.
The SIR for Bihar was ordered in June. Even while challenges were pending, the ECI extended SIR to Tamil Nadu, West Bengal and Kerala on October 27. Petitions against these exercises are also being heard, with hearings fixed on Dec 2 (Kerala), Dec 4 (Tamil Nadu), and Dec 9 (West Bengal).
Yesterday, the ECI told the Court that political parties were creating unnecessary fear about the SIR process.
