"The whole idea is to have a clean electoral roll": Ex-Kerala HC judge PN Ravindran defends SIR
Former Kerala HC judge PN Ravindran defends the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) as a vital process to ensure clean and valid electoral rolls.
Former Kerala High Court judge Justice PN Ravindran has come out in strong defense of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise, asserting that the primary goal is to maintain a clean and valid electoral roll for the nation.
A Necessary Step for Valid Elections
Speaking on the ongoing revision process, Justice Ravindran emphasized that the accuracy of voter lists is a fundamental requirement for conducting fair elections. He noted that the current process marks the ninth time such an intensive exercise has been conducted.
"The whole idea is to have a clean electoral roll, which is a significant requirement: a valid electoral roll. It's a significant need for an election. So, the duty lies with the Election Commission," Justice Ravindran stated.
Addressing concerns regarding political influence, he clarified that these exercises are not partisan. He pointed out that the SIR has been carried out eight times previously, including during periods when the Congress Party was in power. He argued that the repetition of this process over many years proves it is a standard administrative procedure rather than a tool controlled by the ruling government.
Election Commission Remains Independent
Justice Ravindran further reassured the public regarding the autonomy of the poll body. He described the Election Commission as an "insulated body" that operates independently of government control, rooted in a constitutional charter established decades ago during the framing of the Constitution.
Regarding citizens who might find their names removed from the rolls during this purification process, he advised against public protests. Instead, he suggested that aggrieved voters should utilize established legal and administrative channels.
- Seek Redressal: Use the authority of the courts to resolve grievances.
- Administrative Mechanisms: Follow the official procedures set up for voter corrections.
- Avoid Unrest: Use legal remedies rather than taking disputes to the streets.
Clash Over 'Mass Disenfranchisement' Claims
The defense of the SIR comes amidst a growing debate within the judiciary. The tension escalated following remarks by sitting Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, who suggested that administrative actions leading to the removal of millions of voters could be seen as "intrinsically arbitrary" and a threat to the constitutional order.
However, Justice Dhingra has challenged the factual basis of these claims. Addressing the figures cited in the debate, Dhingra argued that out of the 13 crore people being discussed, approximately 3 crore are deceased, while another 2.5 to 3 crore have migrated from their original locations. He also noted that many individuals maintain duplicate registrations in multiple states or cities like Delhi.
Questions of Judicial Ethics
Justice Dhingra also raised serious concerns regarding judicial conduct, suggesting that Justice Bhuyan’s public comments may have breached the expected standards for a sitting Supreme Court judge. He pointed to the rules of ethics which mandate that judges should refrain from commenting on sensitive political or constitutional issues that are likely to come before the court.
"By making these comments, he has invited upon himself a disqualification," Dhingra remarked, emphasizing that sitting judges are bound by a higher standard of conduct to maintain the integrity of the judiciary.