EC Discretion During SIR is Not Unregulated Power
Context:
The Supreme Court (SC) has observed that while the Election Commission (EC) holds "widest discretions," its deviations during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls cannot be "untrammelled or unregulated" in breach of principles of natural justice and procedure prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules of 1960
The Core Issue:
The Court questioned the EC's deviations from the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 during the ongoing SIR exercise.
It noted potential breaches of natural justice and prescribed procedures
The Bench pointed out that while Form 6 (for voter registration) requires six notified documents, the EC's SIR demanded 11 documents, questioning if the EC can arbitrarily increase or eliminate prescribed requirements
Legal Basis & EC’s Stand:
The EC argued that the SIR was sustainable under Article 324 read with Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1950
Section 21(3) grants the EC residuary power to direct special revisions "in such manner as it may think fit," which the EC claimed "unshackles" it from strict procedural limits
Supreme Court’s Observation:
Chief Justice Surya Kant emphasized that special revisions involve serious consequences for the civil rights of existing voters, necessitating a transparent procedure
Justice Joymalya Bagchi highlighted Rule 25 of the 1960 Rules
It mandates that intensive revisions must follow the procedure prescribed under Rules 4 to 23, effectively placing "shackles" on the EC’s authority to deviate
The EC conceded that any deviation must still embrace Article 14, constitutional norms of transparency, and ease of voters.