The People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) has strongly condemned the Supreme Court's May 27, 2026 judgment in the case of Association of Democratic Rights vs Election Commission of India, describing it as a landmark setback to political equality and democratic rights in India. In a statement, PUCL President Kavita Srivastava and General Secretary V. Suresh alleged that the ruling effectively legitimises what they termed a "mass disenfranchisement exercise" carried out by the Election Commission of India (ECI) through the Special Intensive Review (SIR) of electoral rolls.
The civil liberties organisation claimed that the SIR exercise in Bihar resulted in the removal of more than 68 lakh voters from the electoral rolls. According to PUCL, while 65 lakh names were deleted when draft rolls were published, a further 3.66 lakh voters were removed from the final rolls. Although 21.53 lakh voters were subsequently added, the organisation argued that the ECI had not provided sufficient transparency to determine whether those added were the same individuals whose names had earlier been deleted.
PUCL contended that the deletions disproportionately affected economically weaker sections, migrant workers, women and minority communities. Citing submissions made before the Supreme Court by political analyst and social scientist Yogendra Yadav, the organisation said Bihar's Electoral-to-Adult Population (EP) ratio had fallen from 97 per cent before the SIR to 88 per cent afterward, representing what it described as an unprecedented decline in electoral inclusion.
The organisation further argued that the review process was inherently exclusionary because it restricted proof of eligibility to a limited set of 11 documents, many of which are not readily available to poorer and marginalised citizens. It criticised the ECI's decision not to accept documents such as ration cards and Elector Photo Identity Cards (EPICs), which had previously been recognised for electoral purposes. PUCL also objected to the requirement that individuals born after 2003 furnish identity documents of both parents, saying such conditions ignored the realities of a "document-poor society."
According to the statement, the Supreme Court failed to adequately examine whether the SIR exercise complied with the constitutional principle of inclusion that has historically guided India's electoral system. PUCL argued that electoral laws, including the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, and previous judicial precedents, have consistently prioritised the inclusion of eligible voters rather than their exclusion.
The organisation also questioned the Election Commission's justification for conducting the SIR exercise. PUCL said the ECI had cited concerns about migration, urbanisation, duplicate entries and the presence of non-citizens on electoral rolls but had failed to provide adequate data to demonstrate the scale of these problems. It criticised the Supreme Court for accepting these explanations without demanding detailed evidence.
A major concern raised by PUCL relates to the Court's interpretation of Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. The organisation argued that the provision was intended to grant the Election Commission limited powers to conduct special revisions in specific constituencies, but the Court's interpretation effectively authorises intensive electoral reviews across the country.
The civil liberties group also accused the Court of departing from earlier constitutional protections established in the 1995 judgment in Lal Babu Hussain vs Electoral Registration Officer, which held that inclusion in the electoral roll carries a presumption of citizenship and voting eligibility. According to PUCL, the SIR process reverses that presumption by requiring already enrolled voters to prove their eligibility afresh.
Expressing concern over the broader implications of the verdict, PUCL warned that the judgment could pave the way for a nationwide citizenship verification framework similar to the National Register of Citizens (NRC). It pointed to the Court's direction that individuals whose eligibility remains in doubt should be referred to competent authorities under the Citizenship Act, 1955, for adjudication of citizenship status.
The organisation further claimed that the consequences of deletion from voter rolls could extend beyond electoral rights. Referring to public statements made by Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar regarding the possible denial of welfare benefits to individuals removed from electoral rolls, PUCL argued that disenfranchisement could potentially affect access to ration schemes, banking services and other socio-economic entitlements.
PUCL also linked the issue to concerns about the independence of the Election Commission. It recalled the Supreme Court's 2023 judgment in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, which had sought to safeguard the appointment process of Election Commissioners. The organisation argued that subsequent legislative changes weakened those safeguards and reduced the institutional independence of the ECI.
Comparing the latest ruling with the controversial 1976 decision in ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, PUCL alleged that the judgment undermines the constitutional principle of "one person, one vote, one value" articulated by B. R. Ambedkar. The organisation maintained that the verdict creates a precedent under which governments could influence the composition of the electorate itself.
Concluding its statement, PUCL described the judgment as a threat to democratic norms and political equality, warning that it could facilitate similar electoral revision exercises across India. The organisation asserted that the decision marks a significant shift in the relationship between citizens, electoral rights and state authority, and called it a development with far-reaching implications for Indian democracy.
Comments
Post a Comment
NOTE: Hateful, abusive comments won't be published. -- Editor