New Delhi. During the hearing in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in the Supreme Court on Wednesday, senior advocate Kapil Sibal argued that ‘Aadhaar’ establishes residence, and even though it is not a conclusive proof of citizenship, it does form the basis of an important presumption which cannot be ignored. On this, Justice Joymalya Bagchi clarified that Form-6, used to add names to the voter list, cannot compel the Election Commission to accept every entry without verification.
Emphasizing the need to remove dead voters from the list, Justice Bagchi said that the very purpose of the lists published in gram panchayats and on official portals is to correct errors through public monitoring. He also said that the Supreme Court does not give decisions in the air.
The Supreme Court further said that the argument that SIR exercise was never conducted before in the country cannot become a basis to question the validity of the decisions of the Election Commission to start this process in those states. Starting the final hearing on petitions challenging the validity of the Election Commission’s decision to conduct SIR in several states, a bench of Chief Justice (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said the Commission has ‘inherent power to determine the correctness of the entry in Form 6.’ A person has to fill Form 6 to register himself as a voter.
The bench also reiterated that Aadhaar card ‘does not provide complete proof of citizenship and that is why we said that it will be one of the documents in the list of documents… If any is removed then notice of removal will have to be given.’ The Chief Justice said, “Aadhaar is a provision made by law to avail benefits. Should a person be made a voter just because he is given Aadhaar for ration? Suppose someone is a resident of a neighboring country and is a labourer?”
The bench did not agree with a particular contention and said, “You are saying that the Election Commission is a post office, which should accept the Form 6 submitted and include your name.” Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for some of the petitioners, said, “Prima facie, yes… unless there is material to the contrary.” The bench said, “The Election Commission will always have the inherent constitutional right to determine the authenticity of the documents…”
Meanwhile, the apex court also scheduled the hearing on several petitions challenging the SIR in Tamil Nadu, Kerala and West Bengal. The bench asked the Election Commission to file its reply by December 1 on the petitions challenging the SIR in Tamil Nadu and gave two days’ time to the petitioners to file their rejoinder. The petitions will be listed on December 4. The Election Commission will have to file its reply on the petitions against SIR in Kerala by December 1 and the petitions will be heard on December 2.
The bench said the petitions against SIR in West Bengal, where some BLOs have allegedly committed suicide, will be heard on December 9 and meanwhile the Election Commission has to file its reply over the weekend. The bench said that the West Bengal State Election Commission and the state government are also free to file their reply till December 1.
A bench headed by the Chief Justice began the final hearing on the larger issue of legality and validity of the Election Commission’s decision to amend the voter list. Starting the arguments, Sibal said that the SIR process has raised fundamental concerns about democratic participation. “This is a matter that affects democracy,” he said. He said the SIR imposes an unconstitutional burden on ordinary voters, many of whom are illiterate, to fill out the form and risk exclusion if they do not.
He urged the court to focus on constitutional safeguards rather than procedural fairness. He said that once a voter’s name is included in the voter list, the presumption of validity continues until the state proves otherwise. “A proper and fair process should be followed to remove any name,” he said. He stressed that the self-declaration under Form 6 is accepted as proof of citizenship for inclusion and cannot be subjected to any unreasonable standard to maintain it.
