SIR row: 'SC is abdicating its duty to uphold the law' I Capital Beat

In this Capital Beat episode, election data expert Dr Pyare Lal Garg gives a scathing critique of the Supreme Court’s response to Bihar’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process. With over 65 lakh voters removed from the rolls, questions about due process, citizenship verification, and the role of the Election Commission have triggered alarm. Dr. Garg argues that the EC has overstepped its mandate, the SC is abdicating its duty to uphold the law, and mass disenfranchisement is being normalised through procedural opacity.

What are the key takeaways from the first day of the Supreme Court hearing on Bihar’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR)?

People occupying the highest offices in the judiciary appear reluctant to enforce the law. The Supreme Court has only offered suggestions, not directives, and accepted the Election Commission’s assertion that Aadhaar isn’t proof of citizenship—despite amendments in 2022 by this very government stating otherwise. If the court isn’t going to interpret or implement the law, then are we being governed by the Constitution or by the whims of individuals?

Section 23(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, clearly states that only Aadhaar can be sought from electors. If the EC refuses to comply and the Supreme Court won’t intervene, then it’s not the law that governs us—it’s arbitrary authority.

The SC called the SIR exercise a case of "trust deficit." What do you make of that?

That trust deficit lies with the Election Commission. They’ve acted arbitrarily, illegally, and unconstitutionally. They're committing fraud by deleting names in a hurried and opaque manner. People don’t trust them because the EC has not followed the law.

And if the judiciary is willing to overlook this lawlessness and call it a "trust deficit", they’re trivialising a very serious issue. Saying Aadhaar isn’t proof of citizenship is one thing — but who gave the EC the authority to decide who is a citizen? That lies with the Home Ministry, not the EC.

The Bombay High Court on the same day held that Aadhaar, PAN, and voter ID cards don’t prove citizenship. Does that validate the EC’s approach?

That ruling was in a different context—bail for a Bangladeshi national. When you're deciding citizenship, yes, Article 5–11 of the Constitution applies. But when determining eligibility to vote, the Representation of the People Act, the 1960 Rules, and the 1961 Conduct of Election Rules apply. The EC has no right to adjudicate citizenship. That lies with the Home Ministry.

What about the EC’s claim that it deleted over 65 lakh names due to death, duplication, or migration?

If the EC says 22 lakh are dead, they must provide sources—who reported the deaths? Parents, neighbours, village heads? If they removed 35 lakh names for shifting addresses, what proof do they have? It’s a massive, arbitrary deletion without transparency or accountability.

Declaring a living person dead is a serious crime. The EC must be held responsible. Yet, the court seems willing to accept this process without any demand for evidence.

Do you think the Supreme Court will factor in ground reports and media exposés that highlight SIR irregularities?

I hope so, but I have doubts. Everything is in the public domain: Rahul Gandhi’s video, reports by Aaj Times, Reporters’ Collective, and Dainik Bhaskar. But despite fraudulent forms, forged signatures, and BLOs never visiting homes, the court seems inclined to trust the EC’s word over concrete evidence.

Rakesh Dwivedi, counsel for the EC, called Yogendra Yadav’s efforts a "drama." What do you think of that?

It was deeply inappropriate. When someone presents two living citizens wrongly declared dead, the court should have asked the EC to investigate and reinstate their names. Instead, the EC deflects responsibility onto citizens. It’s not Yadav’s job to do the EC’s work. Their duty is to protect every citizen’s right to vote—not dismiss valid concerns with mockery.

Do you expect the SIR exercise to be rolled back?

Honestly, I have no hope. If it happens, it’ll be a miracle. I’ve seen how the judiciary functions. They once requested 15 examples of wrongful deletions and stated they’d scrap the exercise. Two were presented. That should have triggered action. Instead, the court did nothing.

Had I been in Yogendra Yadav’s position, I wouldn’t have presented those two people. I’d have submitted a list and asked the court to call the EC’s bluff. The court should have demanded a response: Why were these people declared dead? What safeguards are in place to prevent this in future?

The content above has been generated using a fine-tuned AI model. To ensure accuracy, quality, and editorial integrity, we employ a Human-In-The-Loop (HITL) process. While AI assists in creating the initial draft, our experienced editorial team carefully reviews, edits, and refines the content before publication. At The Federal, we combine the efficiency of AI with the expertise of human editors to deliver reliable and insightful journalism.