The Supreme Court is zeroing in on the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) rationale for the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter rolls in Bihar and other states. That happened. The central observation from the bench, comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, is that the term “migration,” which the ECI cited as a reason for the revision, may not be limited to internal movement. It could also include cross-border migration.
This interpretation is key because it suggests that the idea of verifying citizenship may not be “alien” to the SIR notification, even if it wasn’t explicitly stated.
Also Read | The S24 Ultra Steal: How to Get ₹35,000 Off During the Flipkart Buy Buy Sale
The Constitutional Conflict
The court is hearing a series of petitions challenging the SIR, arguing that the ECI is illegally disenfranchising citizens on mere suspicion of their citizenship status.
-
Petitioner’s Argument (Raju Ramachandran): The June 24 ECI order for SIR only cited “rapid urbanisation” and “frequent migration” within the country (for livelihood, education). Ramachandran argued that for a booth-level officer (BLO) to suspend someone’s citizenship based on suspicion is “dangerous and use of such plenary power” when a statutory process for citizenship verification already exists.
Also Read | The S24 Ultra Steal: How to Get ₹35,000 Off During the Flipkart Buy Buy Sale
-
The Court’s Query: The bench countered that the term “migration” does not have an “inbuilt domestic import.” They observed, “Migration can be trans-country. It may not be within the country alone.” The court stressed its duty to preserve the purity and integrity of elections and questioned whether the ECI should be expected to be “inert” when entries look dubious.
-
The Inquisitorial Role: The court suggested that the ECI must engage in some kind of “purifying and sieving process” and that an “inquisitorial role” is necessary in a fact-finding inquiry—the “blind eye theory” is not to be applied.
The “Copy-Paste” Allegation
Ramachandran raised a significant concern, alleging that after Bihar, the ECI performed a “copy paste” job, replicating the SIR exercise across nine states and three union territories using the exact same vague grounds (migration, urbanisation). This, he argued, shows a “non-application of mind“ by the poll panel.
The court has clarified that these are not its final conclusions, but rhetorical devices to evoke the best arguments. The ECI now has to respond. The matter is posted for further hearing on December 16.
Also Read | The S24 Ultra Steal: How to Get ₹35,000 Off During the Flipkart Buy Buy Sale
End…
