Abhishek Singhvi’s arguments on the validity of SIR By Justice Katju

The lawyer Arun Agarwal whom journalist Neelu Vyas interviewed on her youtube show waxed eloquent on the ‘irrefutable’ arguments of senior advocate Dr Abhishek Singhvi before the Supreme Court in the case challenging the validity of the SIR ( Special Investigative Revision ) issued by the Election Commission of India. But are the arguments really tenable ?

The video link of the arguments of Dr Singhvi’s arguments in Court is given below :

In this article I am only dealing with the arguments of Dr Abhishek Singhvi, and not with the points raised by Kapil Sibal e.g. that the ECI cannot decide citizenship of the persons on the voters list.

There are several flaws in what Abhishek Singhvi and Arun Agarwal said :

(1) Dr Singhvi harped on his main argument that the ECI cannot order an SIR for the whole state, but only for a particular constituency. Let us examine this argument carefully.

Dr Singhvi relied on section 21( 3 ) of the Representation of People Act, 1950

Section 21 of the Act states :

 Preparation and revision of electoral rolls.—

(1)The electoral roll for each constituency shall be prepared in the prescribed manner by reference to the qualifying date and shall come into force immediately upon its final publication in accordance with the rules made under this Act.(2)The said electoral roll—(a)shall, unless otherwise directed by the Election Commission for reasons to be recorded in writing, be revised in the prescribed manner by reference to the qualifying date—(i)before each general election to the House of the People or to the Legislative Assembly of a State; and(ii)before each bye-election to fill a casual vacancy in a seat allotted to the constituency; and(b)shall be revised in any year in the prescribed manner by reference to the qualifying date if such revision has been directed by the Election Commission:Provided that if the electoral roll is not revised as aforesaid, the validity or continued operation of the said electoral roll shall not thereby be affected.(3)Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), the Election Commission may at any time, for reasons to be recorded, direct a special revision of the electoral roll for any constituency or part of a constituency in such manner as it may think fit:Provided that subject to the other provisions of this Act, the electoral roll for the constituency, as in force at the time of the issue of any such direction, shall continue to be in force until the completion of the special revision so directed ”.Dr Singhvi and Arun Agarwal emphasized that section 21(3) uses the words ” special revision ”, and said that the SIR could only be for a particular constituency, and not the whole state. But section 21(2)(a) and (b) does not exclude revision of the electoral roll for the whole state. To argue that the use of the words ” special revision ” in the SIR mean that the order issued by the ECI  is illegal, as it cannot be attributed to section 21(2), is fallacious, as it is well settled principle of interpretation of statutes that the nomenclature used in a provision or order is irrelevant. The substance of the matter has to be seen. So even if the SIR is called a ‘special revision’ it is also a revision as contemplated by section 21(2).For instance, if it comes to the knowledge of the ECI that there has been a large scale permanent migration of people from the state, and such people have thereby lost the right to vote in the state, the ECI can certainly issue an order for investigation under section 21(2) for the whole state. The same would apply if there has been largescale illegal migration into the state of people who have surreptitiously and illegally got themselves enrolled as voters, or people who have died in the state but their names are still on the voters list..(2) Dr Singhvi then referred to Form 7 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, under which someone has to file an objection to a name in the voters list before that name can be deleted. 
This argument overlooks section Rule 21A of the said rules, which states :”  Deletion of names.—If it appears to the registration officer at any time before the final publication of the roll that owing to inadvertence or error or otherwise, the names of dead persons or of persons who have ceased to be, or are not, ordinarily residents in the constituency or of persons who are otherwise not entitled to be registered in that roll, have been included in the roll and that remedial action should be taken under this rule, the registration officer, shall— (a) prepare a list of the names and other details of such electors; (b) exhibit on the notice board of his office a copy of the list together with a notice as to the time and place at which the question of deletion of these names from the roll will be considered, and also publish the list and the notice in such other manner as he may think fit; and (c) after considering any verbal or written objections that may be preferred, decide whether all or any of the names should be deleted from the roll: Provided that before taking any action under this rule in respect of any person on the ground that he has ceased to be, or is not, ordinarily resident in the constituency, or is otherwise not entitled to be registered in that roll, the registration officer shall make every endeavour to   o give him a reasonable opportunity to show cause why the action proposed should not be taken in relation to him ”.No doubt this is only the power of the Registration Officers of particular constituencies. But the ECI can certainly issue an order under its power in  Article 324 to all the Registration Officers in the state to act under Rule 21A.The argument that a name cannot be removed from the voters list unless someone files an objection in Form 7 would mean that even a name which is illegally entered in the voters list cannot be removed unless an objection in Form 7 is filed. In other words, such a name must remain in the voters list, even if it is illegally there. Would that be in accordance with democracy ?(3) Dr Singhvi emphasized on the word ” any ” before the word ” constituency ” in section 21(3) of the ROP Act, and argued that the word ” any ” means one. But it is a well settled principle of interpretation of statutes that the singular can include the plural.Thus, with respect to Dr Singhvi, none of his arguments are tenable and can stand careful scrutiny