The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that the Election Commission of India (ECI) had the power to conduct the Special Intensive Review (SIR) process and did not violate any statutory or constitutional provision. The Supreme Court was delivering its ruling on a batch of petitions challenging the SIR for electoral rolls in Bihar.
The Supreme Court also upheld the Election Commission of India’s power to examine citizenship during the SIR period while clarifying that the poll’s refusal to list names would not mean stripping people of their citizenship.
The apex court said that any deletion on this ground would be subject to further arbitration, and also directed the Election Commission of India to send the persons, whose names have been deleted on the basis of their inability to prove citizenship, to the competent authority for adjudication of the appropriate matter.
The Supreme Court said that the SIR has a direct nexus with free and fair elections, noting that the Election Commission of India has the power to conduct audit of electoral rolls under the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act.
What is it sir
The SIR is an electoral roll purge campaign that the EC initiated with Bihar in June last year, citing concerns about fake, duplicate and ineligible voters – including deceased individuals and “illegal migrants”.
The SIR was launched to remove these entries and ensure that the list is accurate and updated, drawing criticism from the Opposition, which has alleged that the exercise is a strategic voter list cleaning campaign by the poll body in favor of the BJP.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday also confirmed the procedure adopted by the Election Commission of India during the SIR exercise, adding that the review was based on a legitimate and constitutional purpose and adopted a fair process.
The Supreme Court said: “Given the nature of the problem to be addressed, the extent of the practice undertaken and the procedural safeguards included during its implementation, it cannot be said that the measures adopted by the Committee are disproportionate to the objective sought to be achieved.”
