There was once again a fierce debate in the Supreme Court on Thursday regarding Special Intensive Revision (SIR). Questioning the massive verification campaign of voter lists in many states by the Election Commission, senior advocate Kapil Sibal made important arguments related to citizenship and voter registration. He said, it is being asked to see the voter list of 2003. How will I be able to prove this if my father did not vote in 2003 or died before that? On this, CJI Surya Kant gave an amazing answer.
On Sibal’s question, CJI Surya Kant said, if your father’s name is not in the 2003 list and you also did not pay attention to it… then perhaps you lost the opportunity. The only difference is that if the name of the parents is not in the list of 2003… then the situation will be different. The CJI’s comment was seen by many in the courtroom as an indication that a family’s historical record of citizenship being absent from voter lists does not diminish a person’s responsibility. However, the court also made it clear that the process in such cases should be fair and transparent.
Singhvi’s question on EC’s rights
During the debate, Kapil Sibal raised questions on running of SIR by the Election Commission. He said that no explicit authority has been given to the EC to implement a process like SIR. Sibal called it a delusion of grandeur. On this, the bench took a strong stand and said, as per your argument, the EC will never have the power to do this exercise. And this is not a daily update, but a special process. If we assume that SIR has never been done before, it does not mean that the Election Commission can never do it. The bench indicated that it is the basic responsibility of the Commission to ensure the accuracy of voter lists, and SIR is an extension of the same. After Thursday’s hearing, the court said that it will hear the entire case in detail from December 2 onwards. Even before this, in Wednesday’s hearing the bench had made important comments on this issue.
SIR is happening for the first time – this argument is not valid
During the hearing, the bench headed by CJI had clearly said that the argument that SIR had never been done before in the country cannot be the basis for examining its validity. The bench said that the Election Commission has the inherent power to check the correctness of the details given in Form-6. Form-6 is the document which any citizen fills for voter registration. The EC says there are a large number of errors, duplication or outdated entries in the voter lists in many states. SIR is a special campaign to correct the same.
Important comment on Aadhar Card
The bench reiterated its old position on Thursday also. The court said, Aadhaar card is not a complete and final proof of citizenship. Therefore it is considered an option in the list of documents and not conclusive evidence. The court also made it clear that if a voter’s name is removed from the list during SIR, it will be mandatory for the returning officer to give him a notice. The court is very strict to ensure that no citizen’s voting rights are taken away without a hearing.
Why is the matter so sensitive?
Many petitioners opposing SIR say that by misusing it, names of a large number of people can be removed from the voter list. The burden on citizens to prove 20 year old records is unnecessary. It can become a political weapon in the border states. The Election Commission argues that lakhs of names in every state are fake, duplicate or irrelevant. Citizens do not give timely information about transfer, death and duplication. SIR will make the electoral process clean and reliable.
