New Delhi: The Election Commission of India (ECI) has staunchly defended its decision to undertake a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, describing the exercise as "fair, just and reasonable" before the Supreme Court.
During the final hearing of petitions challenging the SIR on Thursday, January 22, the poll panel urged the apex court to dismiss the pleas filed by Trinamool Congress leaders and various NGOs, arguing that the process was a lawful execution of its statutory powers.
Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing the Election Commission, contended that the court should not permit a "roving and fishing enquiry" at the behest of organizations like the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and the People’s Union for Civil Liberty (PUCL).
He emphasized that despite the deletion of nearly 66 lakh names during the Bihar SIR, not a single affected individual had approached the Election Commission or the courts for relief. Dwivedi argued that the petitions were driven by third parties rather than aggrieved voters.
Defending the legal basis of the exercise, Dwivedi submitted to the bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi that Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, grants the ECI independent discretion to conduct special revisions. He distinguished this from Section 21(2), which governs routine periodic revisions, asserting that the SIR in Bihar was necessary as no such exercise had been undertaken in the state for nearly two decades. He cited changing demographic realities, including urbanization and population movement, as key drivers for the revision.
The hearing also touched upon the sensitive issue of citizenship. Dwivedi placed significant reliance on the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003, which introduced stricter requirements for establishing citizenship. He noted that this amendment, passed with bipartisan support, had not been operationalized earlier, and the current SIR provided an opportunity to align the electoral rolls with the changed legal framework.
However, Justice Bagchi questioned whether this amendment was the actual trigger for the SIR, observing that the ECI’s initial order did not explicitly cite illegal migration. The judge further remarked that "migration" ordinarily refers to lawful inter-state movement, which is a constitutional right.
Addressing concerns about transparency, the Election Commission detailed the procedural safeguards implemented during the revision. Dwivedi highlighted that Booth Level Agents conducted house-to-house verifications and that over five crore SMS alerts were sent to voters. He pointed out that nearly 76 percent of voters were not required to submit any documentation, while others could furnish one of 11 prescribed documents. He firmly rejected the petitioners' claim that the exercise was "manifestly arbitrary."
The proceedings also witnessed a debate on constitutional interpretation, with Dwivedi cautioning against importing American concepts of "due process" into Indian law. Responding to Justice Bagchi’s observation that "manifest arbitrariness" is now a ground to challenge legislation, Dwivedi argued that US courts often overreach into policy decisions. He referenced the actions of US leaders to illustrate his point, stating that the Indian Supreme Court has consistently resisted such re-evaluations of policy. The bench acknowledged that while Indian courts occasionally use the phrase "due process," the origins of the concept in American constitutional law must be viewed with caution.