New Delhi [India], May 27 : The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) on Wednesday welcomed the Supreme Court's ruling on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls conducted by the Election Commission (EC) in Bihar, stating that the verdict reaffirmed the constitutional powers of the EC to strengthen democracy and ensure transparency in electoral rolls.
Speaking to ANI, BJP National General Secretary Tarun Chugh said voter list sanitisation was necessary and accused the opposition of attempting to mislead the public over the SIR exercise.
He further alleged that the Congress-led opposition opposed the revision process due to "vote bank politics."
"Supreme Court judgment has once again made it clear that EC has constitutional rights to strengthen democracy and make the voter list transparent. Voter list sanitisation is a necessity. The opposition tried to mislead people over SIR. Today, the Supreme Court gave a befitting reply to the same...Voter list sanitisation is the need of the hour. But illegal and fake voters were dear to the Congress-led Opposition. They were concerned about their vote bank politics. So, they opposed every constructive process," Chugh said.
Meanwhile, BJP leader Pradeep Bhandari slammed Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi over the issue. He said that the apex court's ruling proves that the Congress MP was in support of illegal infiltrators, not Indian voters.
In a post on X, Bhandari wrote, "Rahul Gandhi & Congress party stand exposed! Supreme Court declare SIR Process Legal & Constitutional! It's clear Rahul Gandhi & Congress opposed all through because they stood with illegal infiltrators, not with Indian voters. This was, in a true sense, an 'Anti-National Act'! Will Rahul Gandhi apologise today for defaming Indian Democracy!"
On the other hand, political activist Yogendra Yadav criticised the Supreme Court's handling of the matter, saying he was not surprised by the outcome.
"I did not go to the Supreme Court today to hear its order in the SIR case. As a litigant in this case, and as someone who was given the honour of addressing the court, I should have been hopeful, anxious, or at least curious. I was not. The case was decided long ago. We were only waiting for the transcript and its fine print," Yadav wrote on 'X'.
He further alleged that the court had shifted focus from examining the constitutionality of the SIR exercise to grievance redressal.
"The course of this case was settled in August last year. Having heard arguments against SIR for three days, the court moved away from examining the constitutionality of SIR and effectively converted itself into a Consumer Forum, focused on grievance redressal and arbitration, rather than constitutional principles," said Yogendra Yadav.
Yadav also claimed that the matter was effectively decided when the apex court allowed the Election Commission to proceed with the Bihar elections without first deciding the case or rectifying alleged defects in the electoral rolls.
"The case was effectively decided when the apex court allowed the ECI to rush through the Bihar elections without first deciding the matter, and without requiring the ECI to rectify even the most glaring defects in post-SIR rolls," he said.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the Election Commission of India's (ECI) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, which was first undertaken in Bihar, holding that the exercise is constitutional, legally tenable and cannot be struck down merely because it differs from the ordinary process of voter-roll revision.
A bench of Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi held that the SIR exercise cannot be declared 'ultra vires' solely on the ground that it adopts a process distinct from the routine revision of electoral rolls contemplated under the statutory framework.
Terming the exercise a "legitimate and constitutional" one, the Court observed that "the exercise is legally tenable" and is aimed at restoring the accuracy and purity of electoral rolls.
The Court further clarified that the ECI's powers in the process remain limited to determining eligibility for inclusion in electoral rolls and do not extend to ascertaining citizenship status. It held that deletion of a person's name from the voter list does not divest that individual of citizenship, since citizenship can only be determined by the competent authority under law.