SC asks EC to consider extension of SIR deadline in UP, Kerala

The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Election Commission to consider the representations seeking extension of time for the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Uttar Pradesh and Kerala. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was told by senior lawyer Kapil Sibal that 25 lakh names have been deleted in the electoral rolls in Uttar Pradesh alone.

“In some cases, the name of the husband is there and the wife is not there,” Sibal said, adding that the deadline for the SIR is ending as well. The revision of electoral rolls in UP is scheduled to conclude on December 3.

Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the Election Commission, opposed the submissions, saying these things should be left to the poll panel. He said that the time has already been extended. A lawyer questioned the hurry and said the assembly polls in Uttar Pradesh are due in 2027 and yet the EC is not giving adequate time.

The bench took note of the submissions and asked the Election Commission to take a decision “sympathetically” on any representations seeking an extension of time, while considering the ground realities. The bench deferred to January 6 the final hearing on a batch of pleas challenging the SIR of electoral rolls in various States. On that day, Dwivedi would start advancing final arguments on behalf of the poll panel.

On December 11, one of the petitioners had said that the Election Commission cannot assume the role of a “suspicious neighbour” or a “policeman” treating voters with doubt.

It had heard detailed submissions from senior advocate Raju Ramachandran representing petitioners opposed to the SIR process being undertaken in several states. Ramachandran assailed the conceptual foundation of the SIR and urged that the poll panel’s constitutional mandate is to act as a facilitator and enabler of voting rights.

“The negative way of viewing one’s own role is that of a disabler or that of a suspicious policeman,” Ramachandran said, adding that when there is an adequate statutory scheme regarding citizenship, the poll panel cannot become a “nosy parker” instructing booth-level officers (BLOs) to cast doubt on voters.

Earlier, the bench asked whether the Election Commission is barred from conducting an inquiry in case of a doubtful citizen and if an inquisitorial process falls outside its constitutional power.