Top court warns exclusion from voters’ list can have serious consequences

New Delhi, Jan 21: The Supreme Court on Wednesday emphasized that “no power can be untrammelled,” warning that the revision of electoral rolls can have serious civil consequences for individuals whose names are excluded from the voters’ list.
The remarks came during the final hearing on a set of petitions challenging the Election Commission’s (EC) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in multiple states, including Bihar.
A bench comprising the Chief Justice and Justice Joymalya Bagchi examined whether the SIR exercise could lawfully deviate from the procedures prescribed under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and associated rules.
Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing the EC, argued that the commission had the power to conduct SIRs under Section 21(3) of the Act, which allows it to revise electoral rolls for any constituency “in such manner as it may think fit” for reasons to be recorded.
The Chief Justice raised concerns about the potential civil consequences for individuals whose names might be omitted, stressing that procedures should comply with sub-section (2) of Section 21.
This section governs the preparation and revision of electoral rolls, requiring them to be updated systematically by reference to a qualifying date before general or bye-elections, unless the EC provides written reasons for a deviation.
Justice Bagchi echoed the concern, questioning whether the EC could exercise untrammeled power beyond judicial scrutiny.
He pointed out that statutory safeguards exist to ensure fairness during intensive revisions and asked if such protections could be bypassed during the SIR process.
Dwivedi argued that Section 21(3) confers an independent and distinct power to undertake special revisions, separate from routine or periodic revisions under Sections 21(1) and 21(2).
He maintained that the language of the statute implicitly allows flexibility in documentary requirements and procedures while undertaking an SIR.
However, he emphasized that the EC cannot act arbitrarily and must satisfy the court that the process is fair, just, and transparent, in line with Article 326 of the Constitution, which guarantees adult suffrage.
The Chief Justice posed specific questions regarding documentation. Form 6 prescribes seven documents for routine enrollment, whereas the SIR requires 11 documents.
Justice Bagchi asked whether the EC could add, subtract, or exclude documents entirely, highlighting the potential for administrative overreach if the procedures were not strictly adhered to.
Dwivedi defended the SIR, noting that the statutory provisions grant the EC discretion to determine requirements, but the exercise must remain lawful and reasonable.
The petitions, including a lead plea by the NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), challenge both the legality and constitutionality of the SIR.
Petitioners have questioned the scope of the EC’s powers, the method for determining citizenship for electoral purposes, and the possibility of disenfranchisement.
The Supreme Court’s observations indicate a cautious approach, ensuring that the EC’s powers are exercised within legal limits and that citizens’ rights are safeguarded.
The hearing, which remains inconclusive, will resume on Thursday. Earlier, on January 20, the EC told the Supreme Court that its SIR order was legislative in nature, laying down guiding principles and prescribing the necessary documents.
These principles are generally applicable across India, with the exception of Assam. The case underscores the critical balance between the EC’s authority to update electoral rolls and the protection of citizens’ voting rights.
The Supreme Court’s scrutiny highlights that while special revisions may be necessary for administrative accuracy, the procedures must remain transparent, fair, and consistent with statutory safeguards.
Any deviation from prescribed procedures could have far-reaching consequences, potentially affecting civil rights and leading to disenfranchisement.
The court’s deliberations will clarify the boundaries of the EC’s powers under Sections 21(2) and 21(3), reinforcing the principle that electoral authority is not beyond judicial review. (PTI)