The Supreme Court has clarified that completion of Special Intensive Revision (SIR) does not mean freezing of the electoral roll.
Completion of ‘Special Intensive Revision’ (SIR) does not mean that the voter list has been frozen, the Supreme Court said on Friday while hearing petitions on SIR in some states.
Hearing petitions challenging the SIR in Kerala, Chhattisgarh and Uttar Pradesh, the court refused to extend the deadline.
Deleted names can be added again
The decision by a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana made it clear that names deleted from the draft voter list can be re-added. This could prevent millions of people from being deprived of their right to vote. The court stated that there was no need to extend the deadline, as the process of adding names to the voter list is ongoing.
Names can be added till filing of nominations for elections
Senior lawyer D.S. Naidu stated that people can apply to have their names added even after the SIR. He added that names can be added until the election nominations are filed. Meanwhile, the Election Commission admitted that officials in Uttar Pradesh had committed irregularities in accepting a large number of Form 7s.
Action against guilty officials
During the hearing, the Commission stated that some steps had been taken to bring about reforms. It also assured action against the erring officials. The Supreme Court allowed the petitioners to raise the issues with the Election Commission.
SIR work in Kerala completed in February
The Election Commission stated that the SIR work in Kerala was completed in February. These voter lists were used in the subsequent assembly elections. The CPM, through its lawyer G. Prakash, said that 2.4 million voters are still missing from the list.
In response, the Supreme Court asked the CPM for details of voters who failed to submit their forms due to time constraints. This request was made so that the Election Commission could investigate these matters and take any necessary corrective action.
Answer sought from Election Commission
Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, appearing for another petitioner, alleged that large-scale voter deletions were made during the SIR in Kerala. He demanded that the Election Commission file a detailed affidavit, despite the completion of the process. The Supreme Court directed the Election Commission to respond to both the petition and Ramachandran’s note.