The Supreme Court on Wednesday clearly stated that the Election Commission has full legal and constitutional power to conduct the pan-India Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The court said it would not stop the process and also assured that it would order corrective steps if any irregularities were brought before it.

CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi dismissed the arguments that questioned the need for SIR and the CJI. They said that not a single objection was filed against the updation of electoral rolls after the process was improved as per the directions of the apex court.

Appearing for RJD MP Manoj Jha, senior advocate Kapil Sibal began his arguments and questioned the constitutional validity of SIR. He argued that millions of illiterate people cannot fill out voter enumeration forms, and these forms have turned into a tool for exclusion.

"Why should a voter be asked to fill out an enumeration form at all? Who is EC to determine whether a person is an Indian citizen or not? Aadhaar card mentions the place of residence and date of birth, which should be enough for persons above 18 years to get enrolled as voters if they give a self-declaration that they are Indian citizens," Sibal argued.

CJI Kant said, "Sibal, you have experience of contesting elections in Delhi, where many people do not vote." He then added that in rural areas, elections are like a festival. People care deeply about their votes. Most people take part, and everyone knows who lives in the village.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal said that such an exercise had never been carried out in India because the ethos of our Poorna Swaraj mantra from the freedom struggle was about inclusion and not exclusion. Justice Bagchi said, "It is a matter of record that in 2012 and 2014, the number of voters exceeded the total adult population. Is it not necessary to correct the electoral roll? If EC has a doubt about someone's citizenship, is it not entitled to inquire about it? If EC carries out an aggressive revision of the electoral roll, there will be deletions."

CJI Kant said that the SIR of the voter list in Bihar showed a clear example. He said, "Initially, the court was told that crores of voters are being deleted. We issued certain directions to streamline the process. Eventually, what happened? Among the deletions from the voter list were those found to have died or migrated outside. No one filed an objection. We did not find any impact on the ground level."

The comments of the bench led Sibal to shift from pointing out the ill effects of SIR and instead focus on questioning its constitutional validity. He said, "The process must be inclusive, and the burden of proving citizenship cannot be fastened on the voters. If there is a doubtful voter, his or her case should be referred to the competent authority to determine the citizenship issue. A booth-level officer has no right to inquire into the citizenship of a voter."