SC said that while it upheld SIR in Bihar, it did not examine the legality of the ‘logical discrepancy’ criterion
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that even though the validity of SIR in Bihar was upheld, the court had no occasion to test the legality of the ‘logical discrepancy’ criterion as it was not used during the Bihar exercise.When EC’s counsel referred to smooth conduct of Bihar and West Bengal elections after SIR, the bench said, “Logical discrepancy (mode for deletion) was first resorted to in West Bengal. We are yet to examine its validity. We will go into logical discrepancy in detail later.”When petitioner Anjali Bhardwaj’s counsel claimed that lakhs of voters were deleted from the draft Delhi rolls on grounds of ‘logical discrepancy’, the bench asked how EC could reopen entries in the 2003 voter list and issue notices for logical discrepancy.“In a voter enumeration exercise like SIR, EC has taken the 2003 voter list as the base. If that is so, how could it classify those whose names figured in that list as ineligible on grounds of logical discrepancy? Can EC go beyond the list and reopen it?” the bench asked.During the last hearing, the bench had suggested that EC examine putting additional filters to avoid mechanical issuance of notices under ‘logical discrepancy’.
SC: Can EC go beyond 2003 list to scrutinise logical discrepancy?
In a voter enumeration exercise like SIR, EC has taken the 2003 voter list as the base. If that is so, how could it classify those whose names figured in that list as ineligible on grounds of logical discrepancy? Can EC go beyond the list and reopen it?” the bench asked.During the last hearing, the bench had suggested that EC examine putting additional filters to avoid mechanical issuance of notices under ‘logical discrepancy’.Opposition INDIA bloc functionaries, led by Rahul Gandhi, have filed a joint petition challenging many issues, including the SIR process, and questioned the allegedly arbitrary non-inclusion of names because of ‘logical discrepancy’.In its May 27 judgment, SC had examined the following questions — whether EC had the power to conduct SIR; whether SIR had a legitimate purpose and the process was proportionate to the object to be achieved; and whether the SIR procedure was contrary to Representation of the People Act, 1951, and Registration of Electors Act, 1960 — and found that there was nothing amiss in the conduct of SIR or the process adopted to achieve the object of weeding out voters who had died, shifted house or had duplicate entries.SC had categorically ruled that the SIR exercise “neither stands in direct conflict with RP Act and 1960 Rules, nor does it detract from the constitutional imperative of free and fair elections”. It had said, “The impugned SIR exercise, as conducted, satisfies the requirements of proportionality. The measures adopted bear a rational nexus to the objective sought to be achieved, are not manifestly excessive, and are accompanied by sufficient procedural safeguards to prevent arbitrary exclusion.
“We are equally satisfied that, in its object and design, the impugned SIR bears a direct nexus to the constitutional goal of free and fair elections. Free and fair elections do not rest merely upon the mechanics of polling. They equally depend upon the integrity, accuracy and purity of the electoral roll which forms the foundation of the democratic process.”