New Delhi – The Supreme Court of India has raised critical questions regarding the Election Commission’s intentions behind conducting the special intensive revision (SIR) in Bihar, specifically questioning whether citizenship determination was a primary consideration. The hearing, conducted on Thursday, has brought renewed focus to the controversial electoral revision exercise that resulted in significant deletions from the state’s voter rolls.
Supreme Court SIR Bihar Hearing Examines Poll Panel’s Intent
During the Supreme Court SIR Bihar proceedings, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi questioned the Election Commission of India about its original objectives when initiating the revision exercise. The bench specifically asked whether citizenship was a consideration at the outset or if it was being retrospectively justified as a reason for the exercise.
The court was hearing multiple petitions challenging the June 24 notification that authorized the special intensive revision in Bihar. The petitions, filed last year, have raised concerns about the process and its implications for voting rights in the state.
Migration and Urbanization Cited as Primary Reasons
Senior advocates Rakesh Dwivedi and Maninder Singh, representing the Election Commission, argued that the Supreme Court SIR Bihar case should consider the fact that such an exercise hadn’t been conducted in the state since 2003. They emphasized that changing demographic realities, including significant urbanization and migration patterns, necessitated the revision.
According to the Election Commission’s representatives, Bihar had relied on summary revisions for the past two decades. These periodic revisions required voters to provide self-declarations of citizenship without subjecting them to intensive scrutiny of their claims.
Court Questions Inconsistency in ECI’s Arguments
The bench hearing the Supreme Court SIR Bihar case pointed out an apparent inconsistency in the Election Commission’s position. The judges noted that while the notification cited migration, urbanization, and updating entries as dominant reasons, the commission was now defending the exercise based on examining illegal migration.
“You say 20 years have lapsed and so much migration and urbanisation has taken place and so you invoke your power to have a SIR. But if you are defending SIR to examine illegal migration, it is not very eloquently put in your SIR notification,” the bench observed.
The court emphasized that the term “migration” ordinarily refers to lawful movement, and inter-state migration is a constitutional right. The judges remarked that the SIR notification did not specifically pinpoint trans-border migration or illegal migration as concerns.
Citizenship Amendment Act Connection Explored
During the Supreme Court SIR Bihar hearing, Dwivedi referenced the Citizenship (Amendment) Act of 2003, which introduced stricter requirements for establishing citizenship, including proof of parents’ citizenship. This legislation was enacted after the last SIR was conducted in Bihar.
Also Read: EV Water Tankers: Delhi Approves Revolutionary 600-Vehicle Fleet
When the bench questioned whether this amendment acted as a trigger for the current SIR order, Dwivedi responded that while the amendment had never been operationalized earlier, the present exercise provided an appropriate opportunity to implement the changed legal framework.
Massive Voter Deletions Under Scrutiny
A significant aspect of the Supreme Court SIR Bihar case involves the deletion of approximately 6.6 million names from the electoral rolls. Dwivedi argued against what he termed a “roving and fishing enquiry” into the special scrutiny, stating it shouldn’t be conducted at the behest of NGOs, parliamentarians, and politicians.
The senior advocate pointed out that none of the 6.6 million individuals whose names were deleted approached the Supreme Court, high courts, or filed complaints with the Election Commission. He argued that organizations like the Association for Democratic Reforms and the People’s Union for Civil Liberty, along with some parliamentarians, should not be permitted to conduct such extensive inquiries.
Court Acknowledges ECI’s Position
While raising critical questions during the Supreme Court SIR Bihar hearing, the bench also complimented the Election Commission, acknowledging that it had a valid case given that no appeals had been filed against the SIR exercise in Bihar by affected individuals.
The Chief Justice clarified the court’s objective: “All that we are trying to ascertain is what was there in the mind of the commission while seeking SIR.”
Matter Adjourned for Further Hearing
The Supreme Court SIR Bihar case has been posted for further hearing on January 28, allowing both parties to prepare additional arguments. The court’s scrutiny of the Election Commission’s intentions and the legal framework governing electoral revisions will likely have significant implications for future such exercises across the country.
The hearing reflects the judiciary’s careful examination of the balance between maintaining electoral roll accuracy and protecting citizens’ fundamental right to vote, particularly in the context of large-scale deletions from voter lists.
