Lok Sabha MP and AIMIM Chief Asaduddin Owaisi has approached the Supreme Court seeking review of the Bihar SIR judgment which upheld the legality of Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.

Though not party to the original Bihar SIR case, Owaisi has filed the review in the capacity of an elector, an elected representative and the leader of AIMIM whose Bihar State President has filed a writ petition concerning Bihar SIR.

Vide the Bihar SIR judgment, a bench led by CJI Surya Kant upheld the legality of the SIR of electoral rolls done by ECI and observed that electoral SIR advances the Constitutional imperative of free and fair elections.

Owaisi's review plea comes in the backdrop of an Indian Express report alleging that around 14 decisions were taken without the concurrence of the two Election Commissioners (Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi) over a period of approximately 10 months.

In the aftermath of the report, questions have been raised about the functioning of the ECI, the legality of changes made to voter registration forms and the electoral roll revision process, including the Special Intensive Revision.

Protests are also being carried out in the national capital and other parts of the country demanding the resignation of CEC Gyanesh Kumar, better functioning of the ECI and independent audit of voter deletions during SIR.

The review petition relies on publicly available reports and journalistic investigations, as the underlying internal file notings, correspondence and records concerning the Commission's decision-making process have not been disclosed in the public domain. Owaisi seeks consideration of the newly disclosed material and production of the relevant official records by ECI.

From the Bihar SIR judgment, it is pointed out that the Court recognized that judicial interference would be warranted where "the decision-making process is vitiated by arbitrariness" or the measure adopted is wholly disproportionate to the objective. The petitioner highlights para 75 of the judgment to underline that the Commission's exercise of power under Section 21(3) of RP Act was protected from interference so long as it acted "within the bounds of the statute", recorded reasons for invoking the special power, and did not transgress any express prohibition contained in the RP Act or the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.

"It is precisely the legality of the Commission's decision-making process that has now come into question" the plea states. It adds that despite having voluminous affidavits, annexures and documents, the ECI failed to disclose the internal objections raised by its own members concerning SIR decisions and directions issued in its name.

The plea flags the principal objections raised by the 2 Election Commissions while the Bihar SIR matter was sub-judice before the Court (as revealed by the Indian Express report). It further refers to the report of The Reporters' Collective, published on October 9, as per which during UP SIR, ECI software auto-generated 85,854 forms to delete voters without a reason.

"Thus, the very officers entrusted with adjudicating objections were effectively made to initiate deletion requests arising from their own determinations, raising serious questions concerning the independent exercise of their statutory functions and compliance with procedural safeguards prescribed under the 1960 Rules."

It is averred that the new material that has come to light since the Bihar SIR judgment— was not known to the petitioner or capable of being produced before the pronouncement, as the relevant records were in the exclusive knowledge and custody of the ECI. "The impugned judgment, unless reviewed, would accord judicial imprimatur to a decision-making process whose material aspects were not before the Hon'ble Court at the time of adjudication."