Revision of Electoral Rolls in Bihar | Day 19: “If rolls are copy-pasted year after year, what happens?” CJI asks

Ramachandran: ECI’s constitutional mandate is to facilitate the franchise

Ramachandran argued that every constitutional body operates within the framework of broad constitutional principles. For the judiciary, he said, these include the rule of law and independence. For the ECI, the equivalent principle is universal adult franchise. He submitted that the manner in which the ECI sees its own role determines how it conducts a revision. If the ECI views itself as a facilitator and enabler of voting, its actions must reflect that. If it views itself as a “suspicious policeman,” the character of the exercise changes entirely.

He said that age, residence and citizenship are the only three qualifying factors for enrolment and that none is superior to the other. “If these are satisfied,” he said, “the Election Commission’s role is to enable those who fulfil these requirements to vote.” He argued that the SIR was never announced as an exercise to identify non-citizens. “Since this was not your stated purpose at all, to start with the presumption of suspicion is alien to this exercise,” he submitted.

Ramachandran: A BLO’s doubt cannot operate as a suspension of citizenship

Addressing the consequences of the SIR design, Ramachandran argued that if a Booth Level Officer’s (BLO) doubt can lead to deletion until appellate processes are completed, “it amounts to giving the ECI the power to suspend citizenship.” He submitted that the right to vote is a constitutional right that is connected to Articles 14, 19 and 21. A suspicion based deletion restricts not only the right to vote but also the bundle of rights attached to citizenship. He argued that when the state deploys processes that affect both voting and access to other public resources, it must act strictly within the statutory framework. “The ECI cannot become a suspicious neighbour,” he said.

Ramachandran: Migration cannot justify broad assumptions in the SIR

Ramachandran then argued that broad references to migration and demographic change are “a facile, lazy assumption” to carry out similar SIR directions across nine States and three Union Territories.  These include Chhattisgarh, Goa, Kerala, Lakshadweep, Puducherry, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal. Justice Bagchi noted that migration is often driven by livelihood and “does not have a domestic import”. Ramachandran replied that this was “an extra charitable interpretation” and pointed out that the term “illegal migrant” has a clear meaning in socio-political discourse.

CJI Surya Kant said the Court’s questions on migration were meant to test the strength of the submission. Justice Bagchi clarified that “the interrogation put to you is not our conclusion. It is only to evoke a response.”

Ramachandran: Procedural safeguards cannot be diluted in a large exercise

Ramachandran submitted that even in an exercise of this scale the statutory safeguards cannot be diluted. He said Rule 21(3) of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 requires the registration officer to record reasons and that this safeguard cannot become a formality.

CJI Surya Kant noted that the SIR was being undertaken after 20 years and asked, “If rolls are copy pasted year after year, what happens,” clarifying that the Court was not drawing conclusions. Ramachandran concluded by stating that in conducting the SIR in this manner the ECI had invited judicial review.

The Court will continue to hear the matter on 16 December.