The BJP on Wednesday seized on the Supreme Court verdict upholding the constitutional validity of the SIR, claiming that the judgment had punctured the Opposition campaign against the exercise.
The BJP trained its guns particularly on the leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, describing the verdict as a “political, moral and constitutional defeat” for him and the Opposition INDIA bloc.
At a media address at the BJP headquarters, party MP Sudhanshu Trivedi said the verdict had exposed what he called the Opposition’s “false narrative” on the electoral roll revision. He alleged that the judgment had bared the Opposition’s “real face”, its “anti-Sanatan Dharma” stand and that it patronised “infiltrators”.
“After suffering decisive defeats in Bihar and Bengal and failing in their design to create anarchy in the country, the Congress has now faced a constitutional defeat as well,” Trivedi said.
He alleged that the Opposition’s attempts to question democratic institutions to mask its political failures had been rebuffed by the apex court. “All their malicious efforts to accuse and malign every institution of democracy to cover up their political incompetence have today been rejected by the Supreme Court,” he said.
Trivedi argued that the court had categorically held that the SIR exercise was not in conflict with the Representation of the People Act and was intrinsically linked to the constitutional objective of ensuring free and fair elections, thereby undercutting the very basis of the Opposition’s objections.
Cong: Contradictions
The Congress defended its opposition to the SIR drive, maintaining that its objections were never to the poll panel’s powers but to the manner in which the exercise was conducted.
“The issue was always one of substance, never merely of form. What was being questioned was not the power to conduct the SIR, but the mode, manner, timing and style in which it was carried out,” Congress leader Abhishek Manu Singhvi said.
Singhvi also flagged what he described as inconsistencies in the Supreme Court’s ruling. Referring to paragraph 171 of the judgment, he noted that the court had held that the Election Commission could not make a formal and final determination on citizenship, a power vested in the Union home ministry under the Citizenship Act.
“Yet, the ECI has already excluded people on the basis of citizenship. Is this not a contradiction? Should this not have invited notice, findings and comment from the Supreme Court?” he asked.
The Congress leader argued that many of the concerns stemmed from what he called an “excessively constricted and telescoped timeline”. He questioned why the Election Commission had sought to complete the exercise covering crores of voters in Bihar and Bengal within four to five months instead of initiating the process a year ahead of the elections.
Citing the Bengal case, Singhvi alleged that names were struck off the electoral rolls before the adjudication process was completed, by which time the elections had concluded. “This amounts to a major deprivation and should have invited a stronger observation from the Supreme Court,” he said.