The Special Intensive Review (SIR) process conducted by the Election Commission of India (ECI) does not determine citizenship, the Supreme Court said in its ruling, while upholding the poll body’s power to maintain electoral rolls on Wednesday.
The petitions challenging the SIR alleged that the Election Commission lacks power under Article 326 of the Constitution, the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the rules made thereunder to conduct such a large-scale SIR exercise.
SC’s top quotes on the SIR exercise
1. “The Commission is authorized… to conduct a purposeful investigation into citizenship for the limited purpose of ascertaining eligibility for inclusion in the electoral rolls. Such an investigation does not amount to determining citizenship in the strict sense of the word.”
2. “The failure of a citizen to appear on the electoral list does not mean that the citizen is unable to prove his nationality, but rather indicates the inability of the Election Commission to verify his nationality.”
3. “The consequence of this determination of nationality is correspondingly limited. It affects the individual’s right to be included in the electoral rolls and thus the right to participate in the electoral process. However, it does not operate to strip the individual of his claims to nationality, nor does it prevent the adjudication of the matter by the competent authority under the Nationality Law.”
4. “In our considered opinion, the impugned SIR does not replace the Representation of the People Act and the Rules. Rather, it breathes life into the constitutional mandate under Article 324 within the fine lines of law laid down in Article 21(3).”
5. “The SIR reinforces the constitutional imperative for free and fair elections…. Free and fair elections do not depend solely on the mechanisms of voting. They depend fundamentally on the integrity, accuracy and credibility of the electoral rolls, which form the basis of the democratic process.”
6. “Inviting voters to submit supporting materials in the context of this exercise does not amount to a denial of this presumption. Rather, it reflects the procedural mechanism by which the Commission seeks to reaffirm or correct existing entries where necessary.”
7. “The development of the documentation framework in this case indicates that the list of documents refers to materials normally available to voters… The argument that the system is exclusionary therefore discourages admission in the absence of materials demonstrating that the documents set forth are, by their nature, inaccessible.”
