Holding that the Election Commission of India is well within its legal right to undertake the exercise, a three-member bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant ruled that SIR “neither stands in direct conflict with the Representation of the People Act and the 1960 Rules nor does it detract from the constitutional imperative of free and fair elections”.
Also read: BJP hails SC SIR verdict, tells Rahul Gandhi to ‘introspect’
The 124-page judgement authored by CJI Kant reads that SIR “is not a process designed to subvert the established procedure, but one intended to secure the constitutional mandate of free and fair elections by ensuring that the roll on which the election rests is accurate and reliable”.
The judgement adds that SIR is “founded upon a legitimate purpose. And that SIR bears a direct and proximate nexus with the objective of ensuring the purity and accuracy of the electoral roll”. As regards the methodology adopted by ECI to carry out SIR in Bihar, the court said it “cannot sit in review of whether the process and methodology adopted by the commission to conduct SIR is the most optimal or appropriate course of action”.
SC added “it is not open to this court to supplant its own judgement in matters that concern the implementation of an exercise which the commission, endowed with institutional expertise and vested with constitutional authority, is uniquely suited to undertake”.
The bench made it clear that SIR carried out in Bihar “was not devoid of safeguards. The availability of multiple avenues for submission of forms, the inclusion of a broad range of documents, the issuance of notices in cases of doubt, and the provision of appellate remedies collectively mitigate the restrictive impact of the measure. These features indicate that the commission has sought to calibrate the exercise in a manner that balances the need for accuracy with considerations of accessibility”.
The petitioners had challenged the list of eleven “acceptable” documents sought by ECI to prove identity of voters for Bihar’s SIR, especially the exclusion of Aadhaar.
The bench held that “SIR, as conducted, satisfies the requirements of proportionality. The measures adopted bear a rational nexus to the objective sought to be achieved, are not manifestly excessive and are accompanied by sufficient procedural safeguards to prevent arbitrary exclusion”.
Thus, the bench ruled SIR “was founded upon a legitimate and constitutionally grounded purpose, namely, the restoration of accuracy, completeness and integrity of the electoral rolls”.
The bench also held that given the “nature of the problem sought to be addressed, the scale of the exercise undertaken and the procedural safeguards incorporated during its implementation, the measures adopted by the commission cannot be said to be disproportionate to the object sought to be achieved”.
Regarding the list of documents sought by ECI, the bench held that “the documentation regime prescribed by the commission represents a considered exercise of its administrative discretion in furtherance of its constitutional mandate. The classification of documents, including the exclusion of certain categories, is based on intelligible criteria having a direct nexus with the objective of ensuring the integrity of the electoral roll. We are, therefore, unable to hold that the documentation framework is arbitrary or violative of the statutory scheme”.
Also read: BJP says LoP Rahul Gandhi opposed SIR as he sided with ‘illegal infiltrators’
SC held that ECI is “undoubtedly empowered to examine questions bearing upon citizenship”. However, the bench clarified “such an enquiry can only be made from the standpoint of determining inclusion or exclusion from the electoral roll and must be undertaken with due regard to the presumption operating in favour of an elector whose name is already borne on the roll”.
Among others, one of the grounds taken by the petitioners to challenge SIR was that ECI in the garb of SIR was determining the citizenship of a voter.
The bench added it has “no hesitation in adding that this assessment is necessarily prima facie and contextual. Where the material furnished by an individual does not inspire confidence or give rise to doubt, the commission is within its authority to decline enrolment or to initiate action for deletion, strictly in accordance with the law”.
