- The Supreme Court asked if the Election Commission can bypass its own rules during electoral roll revision
- The court emphasised that the revision must follow principles of natural justice and fairness
- Petitioners have argued that the Election Commission is not following its rules
Hearing arguments on the legality of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), the Supreme Court on Wednesday asked if the Election Commission of India enjoys "untrammelled powers" to deviate from its own rules and provisions of the Representation of the People (RP) Act for the preparation of electoral rolls.
The bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymala Bagchi posed several tough questions to Senior Advocate Rakesh Diwedi, appearing for the EC, and said that the court will have to examine whether the poll body can exercise its powers like an "unruly horse".
The Chief Justice observed that the manner of the conduct of the revision of electoral rolls must conform to the principles of natural justice - that is, it should be just and fair.
The petitioners, including several opposition parties and the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), have time and again argued in court that the Election Commission is not following its own rules while carrying out the SIR exercise in states.
The Chief Justice took a strict stance. "Revision of voter list can lead to some civil consequences for a person who is on the list, so if something will affect the civil rights of people, why shouldn't the process followed be in accordance with sub-section 2?" he asked.
The top court was referring to Section 21(2) of the RP Act, which provides for the preparation and revision of electoral rolls in a prescribed manner by the Election Commission.
Stating that no power can be untrammelled, Justice Bagchi asked that even if the top court holds that the EC has the authority, can it be said that such a power is beyond judicial review?
“No power can be untrammelled, no power can be completely unregulated. While the power should not be diluted, but it should not be left an unruly horse. Rule 21 has a shackle of some sort. It says if intensive revision is being carried out, rules have to be prepared afresh and rules 4 to 13 shall apply," he said.
'Procedure Prescribed'
The observations came as a response to arguments made by Dwivedi.
When the Court asked if ECI is exempted from following its rules, the senior advocate responded that the Election Commission cannot come up with a new SIR process every time, and the RP Act itself prescribes a procedure that they are following.
"Are sub-section (2) of Section 21 and sub-section (3) of Section 21 of the same nature, either in terms of inquiry or in terms of the preparatory stage of the law? My humble submission is that they are not. Unless otherwise directed, the revision contemplated is to be carried out strictly in the prescribed manner," Dwivedi argued.
"Section 21 operates in a completely different domain. It is regulated by a distinct set of procedures. These procedures necessarily include fairness, reasonableness, and due process. If your lordships see Section 21 read with Rule 25, the framework becomes clear. The statute itself prescribes the contours, including the five-year period... We are on ease of rights of voters, and we cannot violate Article 326," he submitted.
