Supreme Court Warns of Serious Consequences for Citizens Excluded from Voter Lists

The Supreme Court has emphasized the critical importance of accurate voter lists, warning that exclusion from these lists during revision exercises can have serious civic consequences for affected individuals. The remarks came during the final hearing of a batch of petitions challenging the Election Commission’s decision to conduct Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter lists in several states, including Bihar.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Suryakant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi underscored that no authority can exercise power arbitrarily. They examined whether the SIR process could deviate from procedures prescribed under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and related rules.

Concerns Over Arbitrary Exclusion

During proceedings, senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing the Election Commission, argued that Section 21(3) of the 1950 Act grants the Commission independent authority to direct a special revision of electoral rolls beyond routine or periodic updates. However, the Court questioned whether this provision allows the Commission to bypass established safeguards, emphasizing that exclusion from voter lists could seriously affect citizens’ rights.

Justice Bagchi highlighted procedural concerns, noting that while Form-6 requires seven supporting documents, the SIR process mandates 11 documents. The Court asked whether the Commission could add or remove items at its discretion, stressing that the process must remain fair, transparent, and just in line with Article 326 of the Constitution, which guarantees adult suffrage.

Upholding Rule of Law and Fair Process

The Supreme Court’s observations underline the necessity of strict adherence to legal procedures during voter list revisions. While the Election Commission has statutory authority to conduct special revisions, the Court stressed that such powers cannot be exercised arbitrarily and must ensure no citizen is unfairly disenfranchised.

The hearing was part of petitions filed by civil society organizations, including the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), challenging the constitutional validity and fairness of the SIR process. The Court’s remarks signal its vigilance in protecting citizens’ electoral rights and preventing potential disenfranchisement.