Supreme Court Judgment on SIR Today Highlights: Earlier this year, a bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi had reserved its decision on the petitions, including the one filed by NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR).

Supreme Court SIR Judgment Highlights: The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the constitutional validity of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls done by the Election Commission of India, observing that the process neither stands in direct conflict with the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Rules made thereunder, nor does it detract from the constitutional imperative of free and fair elections.

It held that SIR is intended to secure the constitutional mandate of free and fair elections by ensuring that the roll on which the election rests is accurate and reliable.

The top court also clarified that the Election Commission’s authority to decline enrolment or to initiate action for deletion does not amount to a declaration that the individual is not an Indian citizen.

“Where the material furnished by an individual does not inspire confidence or give rise to doubt, the Commission is within its authority to decline enrolment or to initiate action for deletion, strictly in accordance with law. Such action, however, must be understood in its proper perspective. It does not amount to a declaration that the individual is not a citizen of India, it merely reflects the Commission’s inability to be satisfied, for electoral purposes, that the statutory conditions are met,” the court observed.

Key Highlights of Judgment: Following are the key highlights of the Supreme Court’s verdict-

1) The story of democracy is not only a story of voting, but also of identifying the persons entitled to participate in the choice of government.

2) So long as the Election Commission acts within the bounds of the statute, records reasons for recourse to the special power, and does not transgress any express prohibition contained in the Act or the rules, the exercise cannot be struck down as ultra vires merely because it adopts a procedure different from that applicable to ordinary revision of electoral rules.

3) Free and fair elections do not rest merely upon the mechanics of polling. They equally depend upon the integrity, accuracy, and purity of the electoral roll, which forms part of the foundation of the democratic process.

4) SIR as conducted satisfy the requirements of proportionality to the measures adopted bear a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved, are not manifestly excessive, and are accompanied by sufficient procedural safeguards to prevent arbitrary exclusion.

5) The exercise was founded upon a legitimate and constitutionally grounded purpose, namely the restoration of accuracy, completeness, and integrity of the electoral rolls.

6) The election commission retains a degree of residual authority to formulate and adopt a documentation framework suited to the exigencies of a special intensive revision.

7) In cases where the Commission is not satisfied that a person meets the statutory condition for inclusion in the electoral roll, it would be incumbent upon the Commission to refer such an individual to the competent authority within the central government for adjudication in accordance with law.

8) The Commission’s determination being confined to electoral purposes cannot assume finality on the question of citizenship. Any deletion effected on this ground shall therefore remain subject to the outcome of such adjudication by the appropriate authority.

Reserved: Earlier this year, a bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi had reserved its decision in the matter. The pleas claimed that the Election Commission does not have the power to carry out SIR on such a large scale. The Supreme Court, while refusing the stay on the SIR process, had, however, said that it would examine whether ECI had the powers to do the special revision.