PTI
New Delhi
Observing that “no power can be untrammelled”, the Supreme Court on Wednesday said the revision of electoral rolls can have serious civil consequences for individuals whose names are not included in the voters’ list.
The observations were made by a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi during the final hearing on a batch of petitions challenging the Election Commission’s decision to undertake a special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in several states, including Bihar.
The bench heard extensive submissions from senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the Election Commission, as it examined whether the SIR exercise could deviate from the procedures prescribed under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the rules framed thereunder.
Raising concerns, the CJI said the revision of electoral rolls can have serious civil consequences for individuals whose names are not included in the voters’ list.
“If something affects the civil rights of people, why should not the process followed be in accordance with sub-section (2)?” the CJI asked, referring to Section 21 of the 1950 Act, which governs the preparation and revision of electoral rolls.
Justice Bagchi also echoed the same concerns, questioning whether the EC could exercise an “untrammelled” power beyond judicial review.
Referring to the statutory scheme, he noted that one of the rules contemplates that when an intensive revision is carried out, electoral rolls are prepared afresh, and asked whether such safeguards could be bypassed altogether.
“No power can be untrammelled,” Justice Bagchi said.
Dwivedi referred to sub-section 3 of Section 21 of the Act in defence and which reads: “Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), the Election Commission may at any time, for reasons to be recorded, direct a special revision of the electoral roll for any constituency or part of a constituency in such manner as it may think fit:
“Provided that subject to the other provisions of this Act, the electoral roll for the constituency, as in force at the time of the issue of any such direction, shall continue to be in force until the completion of the special revision so directed.”
Dwivedi argued that Section 21(3) of the 1950 Act confers a distinct and independent power on the EC to undertake special revisions, separate from the routine or periodical revisions contemplated under sections 21(1) and 21(2).
“My submission is that sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 21 do not operate in the same domain,” he said.
The CJI, however, posed a pointed query and asked if Section 21(2) enables the EC to go beyond the rules, can the Commission then exempt itself from its own notified procedures when it undertakes an SIR under Section 21(3).
Justice Bagchi questioned the nature of the inquiry under Sections 21(2) and 21(3), particularly in light of the documentary requirements.
He pointed out that while Form 6 prescribes seven documents, the SIR process requires 11 documents, and asked whether the EC could add to or subtract from the prescribed list and exclude Form 6 documents altogether.
