Amid ongoing controversy over Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in various states and Union territories, the Supreme Court on Wednesday underlined that “no power can be untrammelled” as it said the SIR exercise undertaken by the Election Commission (EC) can have serious civil consequences for those excluded from voters’ list.During final hearing on petitions challenging SIR of electoral rolls in several states/UTs, a bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi examined if EC’s exercise could deviate from the procedures prescribed under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the rules framed under the Act.“If something affects the civil rights of people, why should not the process followed be in accordance with sub-section (2) (of Section 21)?” the CJI asked senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi – who represented the poll panel.Section 21 of the 1950 Act governs the preparation and revision of electoral rolls by EC.Justice Bagchi wondered if EC could exercise an “untrammelled” power beyond judicial review and if statutory safeguards could be bypassed. “No power can be untrammelled,” Justice Bagchi said.Dwivedi – who made extensive submissions on behalf of EC to defend SIR of electoral rolls – drew the court’s attention to sub-section (3) of Section 21 which says: “Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), 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…”Dwivedi asserted that Section 21(3) conferred a distinct and independent power on EC to order special revisions of electoral rolls, separate from the routine revisions under Sections 21(1) and 21(2) of the Act.However, the bench wondered if Section 21(2) enabled the poll panel to go beyond the rules and exempt itself from its own notified procedures when conducting an SIR under Section 21(3) and questioned the nature of the inquiry under Sections 21(2) and 21(3), especially on documentary requirements.In an affidavit filed in the top court, the poll panel clarified that verification of citizenship of voters was being done only for electoral purposes and not with the intent to deport non-citizens. It sought to emphasise that the verification process was a ‘liberal, soft-touch’ approach and didn’t involve a rigorous investigation per se.