‘Bihar SIR exercise voter-friendly, not exclusionary’
New Delhi: Observing that electoral rolls cannot remain “static” and there is bound to be a revision, the Supreme Court on Wednesday said the expanded list of acceptable documents of identity from seven to 11 for Bihar’s special intensive revision (SIR) of voters’ list was in fact “voter-friendly and not exclusionary.”
As the row over the SIR which has been challenged in the top court escalated, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said the Election Commission (EC) had the residual power to conduct such an exercise as it deemed fit. The bench also disagreed with a submission by a petitioner that the SIR of electoral rolls in poll-bound Bihar had no basis in law and ought to be quashed.
Leaders of Opposition parties, including the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) and the Congress and the NGO Association of Democratic Reforms (ADR), have challenged the electoral roll revision drive in Bihar.
During the hearing of arguments, the ADR submitted that the exercise should not be allowed to be carried out pan-India.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the NGO, said the EC notification on the SIR ought to be set aside for want of legal basis and never being contemplated in law. He, therefore, contended it couldn’t be allowed to go on.
The EC can never conduct such an exercise since inception and it is being done for the first time in history and if allowed to happen only God knows where it will end, he added.
“By that logic special intensive revision can never be done. One-time exercise which is done is only for the original electoral roll. To our mind, the electoral rolls can never be static,” the bench noted.
“There is bound to be revision,” the top court said, “otherwise, how will the poll panel delete the names of those who are dead, migrated or shifted to other constituencies?”
The bench also told senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for the petitioners, that despite their arguments that non-acceptance of Aadhaar was exclusionary, it appeared that the large number of acceptable documents was “actually inclusionary”.
“The number of documents in summary revision conducted earlier in the state was seven and in SIR it is 11, which shows it is voter friendly. We understand your arguments that non-acceptance of Aadhaar is exclusionary but a high number of documents is actually inclusionary.”
The bench then went on to tell Sankaranarayanan that the EC had residual power to conduct an exercise like the SIR as it deemed fit.
It referred to Section 21(3) of the Representation of the Peoples Act (RP Act), which says “the Election Commission may at any time, for reasons to be recorded, direct a special revision of the electoral rolls for any constituency or part of a constituency in such manner as it may think fit.”
Justice Bagchi further asked Sankaranarayanan, “When the primary legislation says ‘in such manner as deemed fit’ but the subordinate legislation does not… Will it not give a residual discretion to EC to dovetail the procedure not completely in ignorance of rules but some more additives than what the rules prescribe to deal with the peculiar requirement of a special revision?”
Sankaranarayanan submitted that the provision only allowed revision of the electoral rolls for “any constituency” or “for part of a constituency” and the EC couldn’t wipe out the rolls of an entire state for fresh inclusion.
“Actually, it is a battle between a constitutional right and a constitutional power,” Justice Bagchi said.
