Supreme Court judges' SIR criticism lacks factual basis, claims analysis
Sitting Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and former judge Justice Rohinton Nariman have amplified concerns about the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls across India. Their remarks come days before a Supreme Court hearing scheduled for October 5th on pleas questioning the functioning of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and seeking to invalidate the SIR process.
Former judge Nariman, speaking at Rajkot's Rajkumar College on September 27th, claimed that voting rights face "great peril" and alleged that 90 lakh voters were "disenfranchised" during West Bengal's elections. He further stated that of 22 lakh appeals filed, 93% were decided in favour of voters, suggesting the SIR process was "completely illegal."
An analysis contends that Nariman's data presentation misrepresents the actual figures and context of the SIR process, questioning whether the judges' characterisation of "arbitrary disenfranchisement" holds factual ground ahead of the Supreme Court proceedings.
