'Doesn't override existing laws': Supreme Court upholds SIR in Bihar; here's why

The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the Election Commission of India's (ECI) decision to conduct a special intensive revision of voter rolls in Bihar. A bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said that the exercise cannot be rejected as unconstitutional simply because it is a process different from the ordinary revision of voter rolls. 

The top court was hearing multiple petitions challenging aspects of the SIR exercise. The Supreme Court's verdict in the matter comes days before the third and final phase of SIR begins on May 13 across 16 states and three Union Territories. 

According to the Election Commission, the SIR in Bihar was conducted to eliminate inaccuracies in voter rolls by accounting for duplicate registrations, voter migration, deaths as well as the inclusion of genuine new voters.

Terming the SIR as a legitimate and constitutional exercise, the top court said, "The exercise is legally tenable." The top court further mentioned that SIR has a direct connection with free and fair polls, adding that the Election Commission has the power to revise the electoral rolls under the constitutional scheme and the Representation of the People Act. 

"We are equally satisfied that the object sought to be achieved by the SIR bears a direct nexus to the constitutional goal of free and fair elections," the Chief Justice said while pronouncing the verdict.

During the hearing, CJI Surya Kant said that the SIR cannot be considered as "disproportionate to the objective sought to be achieved". He added, "Deletions cannot be said to be contrary to the procedure prescribed under Rule 21 of the 1960 Rules." 

Furthermore, the bench said that the SIR doesn't override the existing laws related to conducting elections in the country. “Rather, it breathes life into the constitutional mandate under Article 324 within the precise statutory contours provided by Section 21(3),” it stated.

"Therefore, it cannot be said that the Commission has acted in excess of its statutory powers," it added.

Moreover, the top court said that the petitioners, comprising mostly political parties and NGOs, failed to produce concrete evidence or examples of genuine voters from Bihar whose names had arbitrarily or wrongly been axed from the voter rolls without any recourse.