The Supreme Court on Wednesday observed that the power of the Election Commission to conduct a special intensive revision of the electoral rolls is “unique” but “not unlimited”, The Indian Express reported.

Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi added that the exercise of the power must be transparent and conform to the principles of natural justice. The bench made the remarks after advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing the poll panel, underlined its power to carry out the exercise.

The special intensive revision of the electoral rolls is underway in 12 states and Union Territories.

The court has been hearing petitions against the validity of the exercise.

On Wednesday, Dwivedi referred to Section 21 of the 1950 Representation of the People Act, which pertains to the preparation and revision of electoral rolls. He said that Clause 3 of the Act allowed the poll panel to deviate from the 1960 Registration of Electors Rules, if required, The Indian Express reported.

Clause 3 states that 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.

“I am seeking an approval from the court that we have authority to deviate from the [Registration of Electors] rules,” the advocate told the court. “If the deviation is completely throwing out the rules, it is a different thing.”

However, Bagchi noted that Clause 1 and Clause 2 under Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act spoke of preparing and revising the rolls “in the prescribed manner”, and asked if this was not a leash on the Election Commission’s powers.

Clause 1 mandates that 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.

Clause 2 provides the Election Commission with the authority to hold a revision of the electoral roll before an election.

The judge added that the only questionthe Election Commission had to answer was if the court held that the poll panel had jurisdiction, “would we hold that it’s completely untrammelled, or unregulated”, The Indian Express reported.

“You [Election Commission] have the authority to deviate, but not by throwing out the [Registration of Electors] rules,” The Hindu quoted Bagchi as saying. “Form 6 [Application for inclusion of name in electoral roll] has six notified documents, your SIR has 11 documents.”

He added: “We would call upon you to answer if you can increase or eliminate documents which are already prescribed?”

Bagchi said that there can be no debate that it is not untrammelled.

“The manner (of the SIR) will be as you may deem it appropriate,” he added. “Therefore, when an action is likely to have an effect on the civil rights of people, why should we not expect of you that the procedure which you will ultimately contemplate and follow will be not less transparent than (when it is done) under Clause 2.”

In response, Dwivedi said that the Election Commission’s deviations from procedure must embrace the constitutional guarantee of equality before the law, equal protection of the laws enshrined in Article 14, constitutional norms of transparency and ease of voting, The Hindu reported.

In Bihar, where the revision was completed ahead of the Assembly elections in November, at least 47 lakh voters were excluded from the final electoral roll published on September 30.

Concerns had been raised after the announcement in Bihar that the exercise could remove eligible voters from the roll.