New Delhi: The Election Commission Tuesday told the Supreme Court that its order on special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in various states is legislative in character, lays down guiding principles, and prescribes documents needed.
The submissions were made by senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the poll panel, before a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi during the final hearings on a batch of petitions challenging the EC’s SIR of electoral rolls undertaken in several states, including Bihar.
“Our SIR order is legislative in character. It lays down a complete set of principles and documents prescribed. It is a general order applicable to the whole country, except the Assam case,” the senior lawyer said.
The petitions, including the lead one filed by NGO ‘Association for Democratic Reforms’, raise significant constitutional questions concerning the scope of the poll panel’s powers, the determination of citizenship for electoral purposes, and the fundamental right to vote.
Dwivedi referred to legal schemes which govern the preparation and revision of electoral rolls and regulate the conduct of elections.
Referring to Section 62 of the Representation of Peoples Act, he submitted that voter registration is subject to specific statutory conditions. Dwivedi said Articles 324 to 326 of the Constitution, read with Section 19 of the 1950 Act, impose a constitutional obligation on the EC to ensure that only citizens are enrolled as voters.
“That is what the framers of the Constitution intended,” he said.
He clarified that the SIR exercise does not proceed on the assumption that every elector must submit documentary proof.
“It is not a case where no presumption has been attached at all,” Dwivedi said.
He explained that voters whose names appeared in earlier electoral rolls, particularly those up to June 2025, were given presumptive validity if they could establish a linkage with their parents’ names in previous lists.
“Only where such linkage is unavailable have this court’s directions required the production of 11 specified documents, including Aadhaar,” Dwivedi said, stressing that the nature of the SIR inquiry is fundamentally different from ordinary verification exercises.
Dwivedi said adequate probative value had been extended at multiple levels. He pointed out that enumeration forms were issued to all voters up to June 2025, consequently conferring probative value even to the 2002 electoral rolls.
If a voter could establish lineage to those earlier entries, no documents were required. Only in cases where linkage could not be established were documents sought, he said.
He also noted that Booth Level Officers (BLOs) were empowered to submit up to 50 forms per day, and that the exercise involved a house-to-house survey with pre-filled forms, requiring only signatures from voters.
“It would be highly improper to lift facts from one case, such as in West Bengal, and apply them mechanically to a different scenario where the SIR has been conducted in an entirely distinct manner,” he said.
Dwivedi emphasised the “symbiotic relationship” between Parliament and the EC.
Referring to Article 327, he said the phrase “subject to the provisions of this Constitution” imposes limits not only on the EC but also on Parliament itself.
“At the same time, the Election Commission cannot claim an unfettered field to do whatever it wants,” he said.
He contended that Article 324 is a “vast reservoir” encompassing administrative, adjudicatory, and even legislative functions.
Dwivedi rejected allegations of coercion or excessive scrutiny, asserting that there was no involvement of police at any stage.
“The grievance essentially is that Form 6 was changed,” he said, adding that there had been no SIR for nearly 20 years and that earlier exercises were based largely on self-declaration without scrutiny.
He dismissed claims of large-scale disenfranchisement, noting that out of nearly 65 lakh voters, no individual had approached the Supreme Court or any high court alleging wrongful exclusion.
The hearing would resume Wednesday.
January 15, the poll panel said it could determine citizenship only to the extent of registration as a voter and could not deport anyone or decide if a person has a visa to stay in India.
The EC, January 13, had said that it functions as the original authority in matters relating to electoral rolls and conduct of polls, and its opinion is binding on the president if a person acquires citizenship of another country.
PTI
