The court reiterated that the revision of voter lists can have far-reaching consequences, particularly for citizens whose names may be erroneously removed. "No power can be uncontrolled," the bench noted, underscoring the need for public confidence in electoral procedures.
Responding to the court, Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing the ECI, argued that the process of checking and updating voter lists is fair and necessary. Dwivedi stated that “every case cannot be investigated at the behest of NGOs and politicians” and highlighted that none of the 66 lakh voters removed in Bihar had approached the court. He added, “Nowadays, winning elections by abusing the ECI has become a fashion.”
The ECI outlined five key points in its defence:
-
Legal authority: Under the Representation of People Act, 1950, the ECI has the power to conduct special investigations of voter lists and determine the SIR process.
-
Need for update: Bihar had not undergone such an investigation for approximately 20 years, and rapid urban migration required voter list updates.
-
Citizenship verification: The Citizenship Act, 2003 introduced stricter rules, requiring verification of a person’s citizenship.
-
Verification methodology: A combination of door-to-door surveys, SMS notifications (5 crore), and document collection from 24% of voters was used, while 76% were verified without documents.
-
Constitutional mandate: The SIR process aims to identify illegal immigrants and ensure citizens are correctly registered, in line with Article 326 of the Constitution.
The court has previously intervened in SIR-related matters multiple times. On January 19, it allowed 1.25 crore West Bengal voters an opportunity to re-register, directing the ECI to display voter lists publicly at local offices. Earlier hearings in January highlighted concerns over potential disenfranchisement and clarified that SIR does not authorize deportation.
The ECI stressed that the voter list revision differs across states due to varying local conditions and that political parties often create fear about the process.
The Supreme Court’s observations reinforce that the SIR must be conducted transparently, with proper safeguards, to protect citizens’ rights while maintaining the integrity of the electoral process.
