SIR hearing in SC: Arguments focus on ‘unrealistic timeline’, ‘exclusionary’ process

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (November 26) continued to hear pleas challenging the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in 12 states and Union territories.

On Tuesday (November 25), the court had issued notice on a plea filed by Vaiko, former Rajya Sabha MP and founder of MDMK, challenging the EC’s decision to conduct the SIR in Tamil Nadu. The court listed the plea along with other petitions filed by political parties like the Congress, the DMK, CPI (M), and others.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, had held a previous hearing on November 11, and heard pleas challenging the second phase of the SIR. The primary petitioners were DMK represented by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal and the NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) represented by Prashant Bhushan.

On a complaint by the EC about parallel hearings being held in various High Courts, the Supreme Court requested the HCs to defer proceedings on the case.

SC issues notice to EC on Kerala

The court issued notice to the Election Commission on the plea by the Kerala government and political parties seeking deferment of SIR in the state since local body elections are being held there.

The EC said it was collaborating with State officials and District Collectors, and that the State Election Commission had said only a small section of Booth Level Officers (BLOs) would be required. It said that different people had been allotted BLO duties from those deployed in the local body elections.

Also Read: ‘Citizenship under question’: Mamata alleges NRC is objective behind SIR

The EC also told the court that 99 per cent of the enumeration forms had been distributed in Kerala, and 70 per cent of the forms had been digitised.

The EC said it would file a short affidavit.

The court asked the EC and Kerala Election Commission to file composite replies to petitions seeking deferment of the SIR in Kerala.

‘Unrealistic timelines’

Tamil Nadu argued that the EC has given unrealistic timelines for the SIR process.

The state said that the EC has digitised only 50 per cent of the enumeration forms in the past 22 days, and only 8 days are left. It said there is also a cyclone forecast. It questioned what would happen to those voters whose forms were not digitised.

Rakesh Dwivedi, the advocate for the EC, said once the forms were singed and submitted, it was the EC’s concern.

He also said that political parties opposing the SIR were hampering the distribution of the forms.

‘Fate of democracy being decided’

Kapil Sibal, representing Kerala and West Bengal, said this case will decide the fate of democracy.

“Our independence struggle was for equality and adult suffrage. Any exclusionary step or attempt taken by the EC is against the Constitutional scheme. Asking the elector to fill up and submit an enumeration form is an exclusionary measure,” said Sibal.

Also Read: Mamata flays EC over electoral roll revision, CAA in Matua belt

“Don’t you think there are millions of illiterate women in this country? Will they not be excluded from the voter list? These are the real issues Your Lordships need to decide,” he continued.

‘SIR should be inclusionary, not exclusionary’

Sibal told the court that any exclusion of a name from the electoral roll must follow a process that is reasonable. He argued that the nature of revision of the electoral rolls must be inclusionary, not exclusionary.

He stated that conducting the SIR in two months is impossible.

Justice Bagchi said the EC has the power to conduct a survey under Section 23 of the Representation of the People Act if it has doubts about the credibility of the voter list.

Also Read: Teachers on the brink: Deaths, threats, and unbearable SIR workload in Gujarat

Sibal replied that he was not arguing on the power of the EC, but the procedure, which is exclusionary.

The senior advocate said the statute requires somebody to object and, with reasons, for the EC to enquire into a registered elector’s place in the electoral roll.

‘BLO cannot decide if I’m a citizen’

Kapil Sibal told the court, “A BLO cannot decide whether I am a citizen or not. That is for the union government to do, after an enquiry.

CJI Surya Kant said there is an appeal process given in the SIR.

However, Sibal argued that millions of people do not have the wherewithal to file appeals.

On Bihar SIR deletions

The chief justice made a reference to the apprehensions that had been raised by petitioners in the Bihar SIR, but he said the elections took place, and the deletions from the electoral roll were mostly not objected to.

Also Read: BLOs in Tamil Nadu face abuse amid intense political pressure

CJI Surya Kant said the court was looking for citizens whose names were deleted from the rolls, but there were hardly any who had made their way to the SC.

Sibal references Sections 16 and 19

Kapil Sibal made a reference to Section 16 of the Representation of the People Act, which says a person shall be disqualified for registration in an electoral roll if he/she:

(a) is not a citizen of India; or

(b) is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent court; or

(c) is for the time being disqualified from voting under the provisions of any law relating to corrupt practices and the offences in connection with elections.

Also Read: Kerala school employee dies by suicide; BLO work pressure blamed

Sibal also read Section 19 of the Act, which provides that every person 18 years and above who is ordinarily a resident in a constituency is entitled to be registered as a voter.

Next hearings

The Kerala SIR case has been listed for next hearing on December 2. The EC and State Election Commission have to file their counter by December 1.

The Tamil Nadu SIR case is listed for next hearing on December 4. The EC counter is to be filed by December 1, and the reply by the State to the counter to be filed by December 3.

The West Bengal SIR case is to be heard on December 9.