The petitions have challenged the Election Commission’s power to conduct SIRs.
The Supreme Court is likely to pronounce its verdict today on the petitions challenging the SIR. The petitions challenge the power of the Election Commission to conduct SIR. Let us know what is the whole matter and why there is controversy over it…
The Supreme Court is likely to deliver a crucial verdict today on petitions challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls. A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi had reserved the verdict after a lengthy hearing earlier this year. Now the court will give its decision on Wednesday.
These questions have been raised in the petition
In the petitions, questions have been raised on the validity of the SIR campaign being conducted by the Election Commission. The petitioners say that this process does not fall under the powers given to the Election Commission under Article 326 of the Constitution, the Representation of the People Act 1950 and the rules related to it. The main issue of controversy is the condition of the Election Commission, under which voters whose names were not in the voter list of 2002 or in some states, 2003, will have to prove their family relationship with a person whose name was included in those lists.
Why does the Election Commission consider SIR necessary?
Most of the petitions were filed in June last year, when the Election Commission decided to launch the SIR campaign in Bihar. After this, this process was extended to many states and union territories including West Bengal, Kerala and Tamil Nadu. The Election Commission argued in the Supreme Court that this campaign is necessary to keep the voter list pure and error-free and to remove fake or ineligible voters. After hearing arguments from all parties, a bench headed by CJI Surya Kant had reserved its verdict on January 29.
Claims of threat to voting rights of poor and migrants
The petitioners argued in the Supreme Court that this condition could deprive the poor, migrants and marginalised people of their voting rights as it would be difficult for them to get documentary proof of their past records. During the hearing, the Supreme Court had also issued interim directions to provide relief to affected voters in various states and union territories and to maintain transparency in the process. Initially, the Election Commission had fixed 11 documents for verification, but later the Supreme Court directed to include Aadhar card also in the SIR process.
