THE JHARKHAND STORY DESK
New Delhi, August 13: The Supreme Court bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi on Wednesday continued hearing the matter related to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the voter list in Bihar. The court observed that the SIR rules are not rigid and only one document needs to be presented.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the petitioners, said that they have no objection to the SIR itself, but questioned why it was being conducted right before the elections. Singhvi asked why such an SIR exercise was needed in July of an election year.
Also Read- CII conclave charts Jharkhand’s path to future-ready, sustainable manufacturing
Court Highlights Election Commission’s Clarifications
Justice Surya Kant noted that the Election Commission had clarified in its press note the process to be followed for the SIR, and pointed out that there is no legal bar on any person of any age applying for a certificate.
The petitioners argued that while the number of documents under SIR could be higher, their coverage in Bihar is minimal, leading to the exclusion of voters. In response, Justice Surya Kant remarked that Bihar should not be portrayed negatively in this regard, noting that the state has the highest representation in the IAS.
Concerns Over Rural and Flood-Prone Areas
Singhvi agreed that Bihar produces highly talented scientists and others, but stressed that this remains limited to a certain section of the population. He highlighted that Bihar has rural and flood-prone areas and high poverty, questioning the logic of requiring a list of 11 documents in such conditions.
The petitioners reiterated that the coverage of these documents in Bihar is minimal, which results in voter exclusion. Justice Surya Kant, however, pointed out that earlier seven documents were accepted, and now there are 11, giving people more options.
Also Read- Jamshedpur FC to face Diamond Harbour FC in Durand Cup quarterfinal
Document Requirements
He added that if the Election Commission required all 11 documents, it would be an anti-voter step, but if voters could provide any one of the 11 valid documents, it would be acceptable.
Following the judges’ remarks, Singhvi expressed disagreement, calling the SIR a move to delete voters’ names. He argued that the EPIC card is the best identity document, followed by Aadhaar, and questioned what could be better than these, noting that the Election Commission did not seem to share this view.
