New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday, July 10, questioned the the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the Bihar electoral roll, asking whether it was legally valid to conduct such an exercise just months before the Assembly election.
The court stressed that while the exercise itself may not be problematic, the timing could result in eligible voters being disenfranchised without time to appeal.
"Your exercise is not the problem... it is the timing," Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia told the poll panel during the high-stakes hearing, adding, "A person will be disenfranchised ahead of the election and won't have time to defend the exclusion," as quotes by NDTV.
Court Asks EC: Where Is the Law for 'Special Intensive Revision'?
A bench comprising Justices Dhulia and Joymala Bagchi questioned the EC’s legal authority to carry out a ‘special intensive revision’, asking under which section of the Representation of the People Act such an exercise is permitted. "There is either 'summary revision' or 'intensive revision'. Where is 'special intensive revision'?" the court asked.
It also challenged the timing of the revision, with Justice Bagchi stating, "There is nothing wrong in having this intensive process so non-citizens do not remain on rolls... but it should be de hors this election."
The court posed three key questions to the EC: its authority to conduct such a revision, the validity of its procedure, and why the exercise was being timed so close to the state polls.
Petitioners, Opposition Call Exercise Arbitrary and Discriminatory
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayan argued that the revision was arbitrary, especially given that 10 major elections have been held since the last such revision in 2003. He questioned why Aadhaar, widely accepted for government services, was not allowed as proof.
He also flagged concerns over the restricted list of 11 acceptable documents and the demand for parental verification, calling the process "illogical". Advocate Vrinda Grover told the court the revision “is designed to exclude the poor, migrant labourers, and vulnerable sections”.
As of now, over six PILs have been filed by various political leaders and social organisations, including TMC leader Mahua Moitra, NCP's Supriya Sule and the Association for Democratic Reform (ADR), seeking a stay order on the revision.
The court has sought a detailed response from the Election Commission on all three issues.
