Supreme Court must rethink its May 2026 judgment upholding the constitutionality of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process, particularly when the process permits deletion of voters merely for not submitting the pre-filled enumeration forms, said former apex court judge Justice Abhay Oka.
In an interview to BBC Marathi, the former Supreme Court Judge pointed out that the May 2026 judgment authored by a bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, allows revision of voters list of all the constituencies simultaneously under section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
"On this very ground itself, the Supreme Court must revisit its judgment... The law clearly says that there can either be an intensive revision or a partial one... Even for intensive revision under section 21(3), the law says that revision can be done only of a given constituency at one time and not all the constituencies simultaneously... It also says that the revision must be done prior to general elections," Justice Oka said.
Another reason for revisiting this judgment is the enumeration form, which has been brought into existence by the Election Commission of India (ECI), without any power.
"The guidelines issued by the ECI says if someone doesn't fill the enumeration form, then their names will be deleted from the draft list... This, according to me, is illegal... This isn't a provision even under the Act of 1950 or even the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. A person must be removed from the list as per the law only... And the law says, one can be removed only under section 21, which permits issuing a show cause notice to a voter and then after giving a hearing, deciding the case," Justice Oka said.
Justice Oka said that the enumeration form is not as per law and thus, if voters do not fill the same, their names cannot be deleted from the list.
"The Supreme Court, I respectfully say this, must thus revisit its judgment of May 2026. If someone doesn't fill the enumeration form, their name would be there in the draft list of the SIR... the ECI can then issue notice to that voter and give a hearing and decide further... The ECI just cannot directly delete someone's name," the judge said.
The judge further said that it is only for the Central Government to make rules with regards to Form 6 or Form 8 for the voters.
"Any rules are to be made by the Central Government... there is no power with the ECI... For additional declaration while giving Form 6 n Form 8, it is the Government which has to take a decision through Parliament.... Form 6 and Form 8 are prepared as per the law passed by the Parliament thus any changes to these two forms, will have to be done by the Parliament and not the ECI," Justice Oka said.
As regards the issue of modified Form 6, Justice Oka pointed out that this issue wasn't highlighted before the Supreme Court in the earlier round of litigation.
"The declaration added in the Form 6 wasn't argued in the SC, so the top court had no chance to comment on this... But now the SC can pronounce its verdict on this very issue..." the judge said.
Further, the judge said that if suppose the SC doesn't revisit the findings, then the entire SIR will be deemed to be a legal procedure. Yet, the procedure can be halted on the ground of arbitrariness.
"So if one law is legal but it's enforcement is done arbitrarily the court can interfere in this and hold that the procedure cannot be implemented or carried forward in an arbitrary manner... ECI should not think that since the validity of the SIR is upheld it can arbitrarily implement this..." Justice Oka cautioned.
Further the judge made it clear that the ECI doesn't have any power to decide an individual's citizenship.
"If the ECI deletes someone's name for failing to prove if they are citizens of India, according to me ECI doesn't have any power to decide whether an individual is a citizen of India or not..." the judge said.