Electoral roll revision has come under Supreme Court scrutiny as judges examine constitutional challenges to the Election Commission’s verification process. The Supreme Court has put off its decision regarding important petitions that challenge the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process. Previously, the court declined to stop the SIR process from taking place, but the court noted that many constitutional issues arose during the hearings. The SIR process originated in Bihar, but has now expanded throughout all of India, and the Commission has continued to extend its revisions into other states.
Petitioners challenged the validity of the SIR’s scope and legality, pointing out that the process poses a risk of excluding voters from the electoral process while conducting verification. The judges of the Supreme Court reviewed their powers under both the election laws and the Constitution of India to determine if there are any checks on those powers.
In the last few weeks of hearings, many political leaders and many civil groups joined in the challenges to the SIR process, arguing that the process of verification would change long-standing principles of Indian elections. Booth-Level Officers are collecting enumeration forms and other documents from every voter, and any voter who does not appear on previous rolls will need to submit proof of eligibility.
Petitioners expressed heightened concern about the risk of disenfranchising voters because of the requirement to produce additional documentation. After much debate and discussion, the Supreme Court bench reserved its judgment. Whatever decision they make will have national implications for the upcoming elections in India.
Petitioners raise concerns over electoral roll revision and burden shifting
The petitioners maintain that the initiatives undertaken by the SIR exemplify an indirect process of validating one’s citizenship status through means other than obtaining a citizenship card. According to the petitioners, only the governmental entity with central authority can determine if one’s citizenship can be established. They referenced various provisions within the election laws that provide a basis for their argument. Petitioners further contended that the enumeration forms used by the SIR lacked any statutory authority and challenged such a blanket revision across many states. They warned that if the deletion of a voter from the voter rolls occurred, participation in civic matters would also be suspended.
“The structural problem that has arisen in the present SIR is because the onus has been placed entirely on the voter. They are being told, first, that they must fill out an enumeration form, failing which they will be excluded from the rolls and even from the draft electoral roll. Second, they are required to furnish certain documents, and if those documents are not provided, they face exclusion.”
Election Commission defends revision as constitutional responsibility
The Election Commission has denied conducting citizenship adjudication. Its claim was based on its stance that verification is limited to electoral purposes and that this can be applied to those who apply for voter registration. Counsel for the plaintiffs has characterized the manner in which this issue has been dealt with as facilitative and broad, stressing the importance of maintaining accurate voting rolls to satisfy the constitutional obligation of the state. The balance between government power and individuals’ protected rights will be determined by the Court.
For more- https://civiclens.in/category/national-news-civiclens-in/
About the Author
