The Supreme Court has issued a major decision regarding the Special Revision (SIR) of voter lists. The Supreme Court has clarified that the Election Commission has the authority to conduct SIR. In a case involving petitioners regarding SIR, the Supreme Court upheld the Election Commission of India’s authority to conduct Special Special Revision (SIR) of voter lists. The court stated that the ECI cannot be said to have exceeded its statutory powers by using SIR. It cannot be termed ‘ultra vires’ either, as this procedure differs from the normal procedures generally followed.
On SIR, CJI Surya Kant stated that after considering the various arguments of all parties, and after reviewing the sequence of events, the arguments presented by the parties, and the material on record, we believe that these issues need to be analyzed. The CJI presented his views through three questions.
Is the investigation under SIR based on a legitimate purpose, and if so, are the measures adopted by the Election Commission appropriate to the objectives sought to be achieved?
Is the method adopted by the Election Commission in conducting the investigation under SIR contrary to or in violation of the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950?
The SC further stated that when the law itself allows for a special amendment at any time, for reasons to be recorded, and in a manner deemed appropriate by the Election Commission, the impugned procedure cannot be invalidated merely because it does not conform in every aspect to the normal procedures laid down for regular amendments.
The SC stated that, in its considered opinion, the impugned SIR does not replace the Representation of the People Act and its rules. Rather, it revitalizes the constitutional mandate under Article 324, within the precise legal limits prescribed by Section 21(3).
The SC stated that, therefore, the Commission cannot be said to have exceeded its legal powers. The Supreme Court also upheld the methodology adopted by the ECI during the SIR process. The court stated that the amendment was based on a legitimate and constitutional objective and that a fair process was followed.