According to the plea, the SIR violates several fundamental rights under the Constitution, including equality, freedom, and the right to life and personal liberty, citing Articles 14, 19, 21, 325, and 326.
Image Source: X
Actor Vijay-led political party, Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), has taken a bold step, approaching the Supreme Court to challenge the Election Commission of India’s recent decision to carry out a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter lists in Tamil Nadu.
The party has filed the petition through advocates Dixita Gohil, Pranjal Agarwal, Shikhar Aggarwal, and Yash S Vijay seeking to scrap the ECI’s notification issued on October 27. This notification calls for the SIR exercise in ten states and Union Territories including Tamil Nadu. TVK argues that the move is unconstitutional and unfair to each voter.
Advertisement
According to the plea, the SIR violates several fundamental rights under the Constitution, including equality, freedom, and the right to life and personal liberty, citing Articles 14, 19, 21, 325, and 326. It also claims that the exercise breaks rules under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and particularly Sections 21 and 23.
Advertisement
The party alleges that SIR is effectively a fresh creation of voter rolls, done without proper reasoning or justification. This, they say, goes against legal requirements and undermines the continuity of voter lists as it allows deletion of names without giving voters notice or even a chance to respond.
The plea points to Supreme Court precedents and existing statutory safeguards under Rule 21A of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. This allows them to argue that the process is legally flawed.
Another major concern raised is the burden on voters. The plea claims that the SIR process demands heavy documentation, which could disadvantage the socially and economically weaker sections. It also alleges that the procedure wrongly shifts the responsibility of proving citizenship from the State to the voter making the exercise arbitrary and unfair. The short timelines and procedural inconsistencies, the plea adds, violate principles of natural justice which leaves little room for objections or appeals.
Advertisement
