Challenge to SIR: Reasons given by EC for SIR untenable, petitioners tell Supreme Court

Terming reasons such as 'rapid urbanisation' and 'frequent migration' for undertaking Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in various states as "untenable", petitioners against SIR on Tuesday told the Supreme court that the Election Commission's power to revise rolls of any constituency didn’t empower it to undertake a pan-India exercise.

"If the reasons are common, they must have a rational nexus. Here even the generic reasons are the most generic of all, rapid urbanisation and frequent migration. Urbanisation has been ongoing for many years. When does an area move from rural to 'rurban' and then to fully urban. Rapid urbanisation cannot be a ground," senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing one of the petitioners, told a Bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the ADR, said the decision to conduct an SIR was "unprecedented". "For the first time, a voters' list is being prepared from a clean slate. This is a de-novo preparation, not a special revision," he submitted.

The Bench took exception to the submissions of Bhushan who described the EC as a 'despot'.

"We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that a lot of people are viewing the Election Commission as a despot,” Bhushan submitted.

"Let’s not make sweeping statements which are not there in the pleadings... please confine yourself to the pleadings," the CJI told Bhushan, posting the matter for December 4.

Bhushan questioned the haste in the exercise and linked the pressure on ground staff to reports of "30 BLOs having committed suicide", and referenced a media investigation indicating that "over five lakh duplicate voters remain even after SIR".

Singhvi criticised the SIR exercise, saying the poll panel exceeded its statutory powers under Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act.

Contending that an "intensive revision" cannot be invoked merely for administrative convenience, Singhvi accused the EC of "conducting a citizenship test by proxy".

"The EC has no power under Article 324 to determine citizenship," he submitted, citing the Citizenship Act and a few judgments. He alleged that the guidelines effectively reverse the burden of proof, forcing voters to establish citizenship merely because the EC marks them as "suspected non-citizens". "This creates a parallel, extra-statutory NRC," Singhvi said.

As advocate Ashwini Upadhyay drew the court's attention to alleged attacks on block-level officers in West Bengal, the CJI said, "The authorities will take care of it. Don't worry.”

Advocate Vrinda Grover termed SIR as an attempt by the EC to arrogate itself powers which were not contemplated in law, adding that the electoral body was entering into the legislative domain.