Supreme Court declines to alter Sikkim electoral roll cut-off

The Supreme Court on August 17 declined to interfere with the Election Commission of India's decision to retain 2002 as the cut-off year for the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Sikkim.

The bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, was hearing a petition filed by the Sikkimese Mulniwasi Surakcha Sangh, which sought 1993 to be considered the base year instead.

The organisation argued that the 2002 revision had led to the inclusion of migrant populations in Sikkim's electoral rolls and created a mismatch between the state's demographic composition and the electoral data.

During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel contended that Sikkim's demographic profile and electoral rolls were distinct from those of other states. He argued that applying 2002 uniformly as the base year could have implications for the state's small communities, particularly amid the influx of people from neighbouring areas.

The counsel proposed using the 1993 electoral roll, while acknowledging that he was not certain whether 1993 was the appropriate cut-off.

The Election Commission opposed the plea, maintaining that the 2002 electoral roll had undergone greater modifications and that the year had been adopted as a uniform cut-off across the country. It argued that changing the base year at this stage would effectively require the SIR exercise to begin afresh.

The bench also questioned the petitioner's locus, pointing out that no political party or other stakeholder from Sikkim had approached the court challenging the use of 2002.

The Chief Justice questioned why an organisation based in Sikkim had approached the Supreme Court instead of raising the matter before the state government. He also questioned how a group "sitting in Delhi" could claim to represent the interests of people in Sikkim.

"None of the political parties has come forward. None of the stakeholders has come forward. It is acceptable to everyone," the CJI observed, questioning the basis on which the petitioner claimed to be acting in the state's interests.

The court noted that political parties could have a direct interest in challenging an electoral exercise because its outcome could potentially favour one party over another. It found the petitioner's basis for challenging the cut-off less clear.

The bench also rejected the argument that Sikkim should be treated differently from other states, noting that it had already attained statehood by 2002.

The court ultimately said it found no grounds to interfere with the Election Commission's choice of 2002 as the cut-off year.

"We have heard you. We do not find any ground to interfere with the cut-off year," the bench said.

The petition was accordingly declined, although the court allowed the organisation to approach the Sikkim government with its concerns.