New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday told the Election Commission of India (ECI) that its powers to conduct a "Special Intensive Revision" (SIR) of electoral rolls are not absolute. The Court emphasized that even when exercising special powers under the Representation of the People Act, the ECI's procedure must be transparent, fair, and rooted in the principles of natural justice.

The Bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, was hearing a petition filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) challenging the manner in which SIRs were being conducted in various states.

The core legal tussle revolves around Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. This section empowers the ECI to direct a special revision of electoral rolls "in such manner as it may think fit," notwithstanding the general rules prescribed in sub-section (2).

Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the ECI, argued that this provision grants the Commission independent and distinct powers to deviate from standard rules (like Form 6 requirements) if special circumstances exist. He contended that the phrase "in such manner as it may think fit" implies wide discretion.

Justice Bagchi questioned the extent of this deviation. The Bench pointed out that while the standard Form 6 (used for voter registration) lists about 6 documents for verification, the ECI's SIR process allegedly demanded 11 documents.

"Can you increase the number of documents or eliminate the documents which are there for place of birth/residence?... No power can be untrammeled, no power can be completely unregulated."

The CJI weighed in, clarifying that the absence of the word "prescribed" in Section 21(3) does not mean the ECI can act arbitrarily.

"The manner must be in conformity with principles of natural justice, transparency, and all other well-known principles... When an action is likely to impact the civil rights of the people, why should we not expect from you that the procedure will not be less than transparent?"

Facing the Bench's scrutiny, the ECI counsel conceded that they are not claiming the right to overlook basic constitutional principles. Dwivedi assured the Court that the SIR process would stand the test of Article 14 \

This observation is crucial for voter rights in India. Special revisions are often ordered in areas suspected of having bogus voters or demographic shifts. If the ECI were allowed to set arbitrary documentation standards for these revisions—stricter than the general law—it could lead to mass disenfranchisement of vulnerable groups who lack specific papers. The Supreme Court has effectively drawn a red line: "Efficiency" cannot come at the cost of "Transparency."