Supreme Court Calls for Clear Guidelines on Electoral Roll Revision as Opposition Lawyers Skip SIR Hearing

Senior opposition lawyers Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi were notably absent from the Supreme Court proceedings.

The Supreme Court on Thursday acknowledged the necessity for clear guidelines and a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for nationwide implementation of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The bench simultaneously expressed concern regarding the absence of senior lawyers representing major opposition parties, including Congress and Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), during this critical hearing.

Justice Surya Kant made observations about the apparent disinterest from political parties in a matter with significant implications for electoral transparency and voter rights. The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), which has challenged the Election Commission of India's (ECI) management of the SIR in Bihar, informed the court that senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, both representing opposition parties, were absent from Thursday's proceedings.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing ADR, requested the bench proceed with arguments regarding the constitutional validity of the SIR exercise. "When we started, it was a cricket team of lawyers against SIR. Now, the political parties have vanished as elections approach," he remarked, prompting comments from the bench.

He emphasized that the lawyers currently present were not representing any political parties. "We are here for citizens. We don't associate with any political parties. We only want the court to examine the constitutionality of the SIR exercise conducted by the Election Commission," he stated, also referencing advocates Prashant Bhushan and Vrinda Grover, who form part of the petitioners' legal team.

Justice Surya Kant responded, "We know, we have all seen how these political parties have responded to the court's appeal to assist deleted voters," in what appeared to be criticism of the opposition's lack of follow-through.

During proceedings, the Supreme Court noted submissions regarding alleged lack of transparency and incomplete voter data. It observed that the Election Commission "knows its responsibility" and is legally obligated to publish final electoral rolls after completing all additions and deletions, while ensuring the process remains transparent and constitutionally sound.

"And in case it does not do so, the proceedings are still pending in this court," Justice Kant told petitioners, as the ECI informed the bench it would publish the final voter list by October 17.

At the hearing's commencement, Advocate Prashant Bhushan addressed the court regarding a previously filed affidavit that had generated controversy. "After the last hearing, there was a hue and cry about an affidavit tendered by me. We have now verified it. All details of voters are correct," he stated.

Bhushan had earlier submitted a list of 135 voters allegedly removed from Bihar's electoral rolls without notice. The Supreme Court had directed the ECI to respond to his affidavit and requested the Bihar State Legal Services Authority to assist deleted voters in filing appeals, even without formal deletion notices.

When Bhushan reiterated Thursday that all names on his list were verified, Justice Surya Kant remarked, "Anything which does not impact the merits, we do not take into consideration."

Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing the ECI, then interjected, saying, "We have filed an affidavit an hour back."

In its latest submission, the Election Commission rejected ADR's claim of "disproportionate exclusion of Muslims" during the Bihar SIR exercise. The ECI stated the petitioners' conclusions relied on "name-recognition software" with "doubtful" accuracy.

The Commission characterized the disproportionate exclusion claim as a "communal approach" that should be "deprecated," adding that its electoral database contains no field indicating voters' religion.

The bench has directed both the ECI and petitioners to file additional affidavits before the next hearing, expected in November. The Supreme Court will likely examine arguments on the SIR exercise's legality and constitutionality in detail at that time.

Previously, the court had observed prima facie that the SIR process appeared lawful, but noted the need for uniform procedural safeguards across states.

The bench clarified that should urgent issues arise before the next scheduled hearing, petitioners may approach the court for immediate intervention prior to November 4.