“The argument that the exercise of SIR of voter lists has never been conducted before is not a ground for challenge” – Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that the argument that the exercise of Special Intensive Revision of voter lists has never been conducted before in the country cannot be a basis for questioning the validity of the Election Commission’s decision to initiate this process in those states.

Beginning the final hearing on petitions challenging the validity of the Election Commission’s decision to conduct SIR in several states, a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said that the Commission has the inherent power to determine the correctness of entries in Form 6.

An individual must fill out Form 6 to register themselves as a voter. The bench also reiterated that the Aadhaar card does not provide complete proof of citizenship and therefore, it said that it would be one of the documents in the list… If someone is removed, a notice of removal will have to be given.

The Chief Justice said, “Aadhaar is a provision created by law to avail benefits. Just because someone was given Aadhaar for ration, should they also be made a voter? Suppose someone is a resident of a neighboring country and works as a laborer?

The bench did not seem convinced by a particular argument and said, “You are saying that the Election Commission is a post office that should accept the Form 6 submitted and include your name.” Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for some of the petitioners, said, “Prima facie, yes…unless there is material to the contrary.”

The bench said, “The Election Commission will always have the inherent constitutional right to determine the authenticity of documents…” Meanwhile, the Supreme Court also scheduled a hearing on several petitions challenging the SIR in Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and West Bengal.

The bench asked the Election Commission to file its response by December 1 on the petitions challenging the SIR in Tamil Nadu and gave the petitioners two days to file their replies. The petitions will be listed on December 4. The Election Commission must file its response to the petitions against the SIR in Kerala by December 1st, and the petitions will be heard on December 2nd.

The bench said that the petitions against the SIR in West Bengal, where some BLOs have allegedly committed suicide, will be heard on December 9th, and the Election Commission must file its response over the weekend. The bench said that the West Bengal State Election Commission and the state government are also free to file their response by December 1st.

The bench headed by the Chief Justice began the final hearing on the major issue of the legality and validity of the Election Commission’s decision to revise the voter list. Sibal, opening his arguments, said that the SIR process raised fundamental concerns about democratic participation.

“This is a matter that affects democracy,” he said. He argued that the SIR imposes an unconstitutional burden on ordinary voters, many of whom are illiterate, to fill out forms, and that failure to do so puts them at risk of being disenfranchised. He urged the court to focus on constitutional safeguards rather than procedural justifications.

He stated that once a voter’s name is included in the electoral roll, the presumption of validity remains until the state proves otherwise. He said, “A fair and impartial procedure must be followed for the removal of any name.” He emphasized that self-declaration under Form 6 is accepted as proof of citizenship for inclusion and cannot be subjected to any unreasonable standard for its retention.

Sibal stated that Aadhaar establishes residency, and although it is not conclusive of citizenship, it nevertheless gives rise to a presumption that cannot be denied. Justice Bagchi stated that Form 6, used for inclusion, cannot compel the Election Commission to accept entries without verification.

Justice Bagchi emphasized the need to remove deceased voters and noted that lists are publicly displayed by panchayats and on official websites. He said, ‘We do not give decisions in the air.’