New Delhi: In a significant directive affecting millions of voters, the Supreme Court on Thursday ordered the Election Commission of India (ECI) to extend the deadline for filing objections following the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Kerala. The apex court also directed the poll panel to publicly display the list of voters who were removed from the draft electoral roll, emphasizing the need for transparency in the exercise.

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vijay Bishnoi, passed the order after noting concerns raised by petitioners challenging the SIR process. The petitioners highlighted that nearly 2.4 million voters had been deleted from the draft roll in Kerala, and the absence of a publicly available list was creating confusion among the electorate. With the original deadline for filing claims set for January 22, the court acknowledged the difficulties faced by affected voters.

“Having regard to the difficulties allegedly being experienced by people in the state, we allow ECI to extend time,” the bench said. The court suggested that the extension be preferably for two weeks, leaving it to the discretion of the commission to determine the exact duration.

During the hearing, ECI’s counsel, Eklavya Dwivedi, informed the court that the commission had already extended deadlines on two prior occasions and was aware of the ground realities. While the court did not prescribe a fixed extension period, it emphasized the importance of ensuring that voters have adequate time to review the revised draft and submit objections.

In addition to extending the deadline, the Supreme Court directed the ECI to publicly display the list of deleted voters, similar to the procedure followed during the electoral roll revision in Bihar. This measure is intended to give affected voters the opportunity to verify whether their names were mistakenly removed and to submit claims for rectification.

According to the Kerala state poll panel, the draft electoral list published last month contains 25.4 million voters, of which 2.4 million were removed following the SIR exercise. The deletions were reportedly due to various reasons, including the death of voters, migration, or inability to trace certain individuals. However, the lack of public access to the list of removed voters had led to uncertainty among citizens, prompting the intervention of the Supreme Court.

The court also took up related issues concerning the SIR exercise in Uttar Pradesh, where ECI informed the bench that it would file a response by the end of the day. In UP, the SIR exercise led to the removal of 28.9 million voters from the draft roll, of which more than 4.6 million were declared dead, with the remainder either migrated or untraceable.

During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid, representing Barabanki Congress MP Tanuj Punia, pointed out discrepancies in the final draft roll following SIR in Uttar Pradesh. Khurshid noted that the number of rural voters in the final draft roll appeared lower than the figures recorded at the Panchayat level. He submitted that a representation had been made to the ECI highlighting these inconsistencies, but no response had been forthcoming.

In another submission, Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for a petitioner in the UP case, urged the court to consider allowing the linkage of Aadhaar cards with voter ID cards. He argued that this measure would help address challenges arising from a large number of migrant laborers in the state, ensuring that legitimate voters are not inadvertently excluded from the electoral roll. The court indicated that it would consider the proposal after reviewing the ECI’s response.

The Supreme Court’s intervention comes at a critical time, as the SIR exercise is part of a nationwide effort to update electoral rolls, remove duplicate entries, and ensure accurate voter information ahead of upcoming elections. The directive for public display of deleted voter lists aims to strike a balance between administrative efficiency and safeguarding citizens’ right to vote, ensuring that no eligible voter is inadvertently disenfranchised.

The SIR process in Kerala, which began several weeks ago, has been particularly contentious due to the large number of deletions. Petitioners argued that the exercise lacked adequate transparency and left affected voters uncertain about their status. By ordering the ECI to display the list of removed voters, the Supreme Court has provided a mechanism for citizens to verify the accuracy of the revisions and to seek timely corrections.

Experts note that the court’s order underscores the importance of public participation and transparency in electoral roll management. “The right to vote is a fundamental right in India, and any administrative exercise that potentially affects voter eligibility must be carried out with maximum transparency,” said Dr. Rekha Menon, a constitutional law expert. “Public display of deleted voter lists and reasonable extension of deadlines are essential safeguards to ensure that citizens are not unfairly disenfranchised.”

In Kerala, the SIR exercise has led to political debates and public concern, with various parties raising objections to the methodology and outcomes. The Supreme Court’s direction aims to preempt potential disputes by allowing voters sufficient opportunity to challenge deletions and correct errors, ensuring the credibility and integrity of the electoral process.

The court’s suggestion of a two-week extension is particularly significant in the context of Kerala, where geographical and logistical challenges may affect voters’ ability to access polling stations and election offices for verification and objection filing. By granting additional time, the ECI can ensure broader participation and reduce the likelihood of inadvertent disenfranchisement.

Moreover, the order sets a precedent for similar exercises in other states, highlighting the judiciary’s role in overseeing electoral fairness and protecting citizens’ rights. The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized that the administration of elections must uphold principles of transparency, accountability, and inclusiveness. This ruling reinforces that mandate and provides clear guidance to the ECI on managing the SIR process responsibly.

As the state and central poll panels prepare to implement the court’s directions, voters in Kerala can now expect to have access to the deleted voter lists and a clear window to submit objections. Election authorities have been instructed to ensure that the process is conducted efficiently and that all eligible voters retain their right to participate in the democratic process.

The Supreme Court’s intervention is likely to have broader implications for electoral reforms across India, particularly in ensuring that large-scale voter roll revisions are conducted transparently and inclusively. The move also highlights the judiciary’s proactive approach in addressing potential gaps in the electoral process and safeguarding the fundamental rights of citizens.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s directive to extend the SIR deadline and publicly display the list of deleted voters in Kerala is a crucial step toward ensuring fairness and transparency in the electoral process. It provides affected voters with the opportunity to verify their status, file objections if necessary, and participate fully in upcoming elections. By balancing administrative efficiency with citizens’ rights, the court has reaffirmed its commitment to protecting the democratic franchise and strengthening public confidence in India’s electoral system.