Supreme Court to states: 'Won't let SIR be stalled, or genuine voters left out'

Supreme Court

• Supreme Court insists SIR of voter rolls in 12 states must not be stalled
• Court open to suggestions to ensure genuine voters are included
• Deadline for document scrutiny in West Bengal extended by a week

Did our AI summary help?

In a clear messages to states, the Supreme Court on Monday said it would under no circumstances allow stalling of the ongoing special intensive revision (SIR) of voter rolls in 12 states.

The apex court, however, categorically stated that it was open to suggestions to ensure genuine voters are not left out of the process. The bench also allowed the deadline for scrutiny of documents to be extended by a week in West Bengal.

“One thing we would like to be very clear (about) is that whatever order, clarifications, interim directions have to be issued (will be issued). But we will not allow (anyone) to create any impediment in the completion of the SIR. It must be very clearly understood by all the States and the State authorities,” Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, presiding over a three-judge bench, said.

The remark came after West Bengal chief minister filed a petition in the apex court, demanding a slew of changes in the SIR process, including ending WhatsApp use for communication and the removal of micro observers.

Chief Justice Surya Kant made the court’s position clear, stating, "We will remove hurdles, but we will not create any impediments in the completion of SIR. Let us be very clear about it".

The bench also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and NV Anjaria emphasised that the revision exercise must proceed as scheduled.

Senior advocate DS Naidu, appearing for the poll body, raised serious concerns over the appointment of Electoral Registration Officers (EROs).

He argued that EROs perform quasi-judicial functions and therefore must possess adequate adjudicatory experience.

Naidu submitted that while the ECI had sought around 300 Group B officers, only 64 officers with such experience were provided, with the remaining appointments made on the basis of pay parity. He contended that officers such as engineers were ill-equipped to handle adjudicatory decisions under the SIR, which are open to challenge before appellate authorities.

The role of micro observers also came under scrutiny. Senior advocate Shyam Divan argued that large-scale deletion of voter names could not be undertaken through micro observers and warned against mass exclusion.