At a time when over six crore voters have reportedly been deleted from electoral rolls across states due to the SIR, even before its pan-India implementation, is it enough for the Supreme Court to examine the exercise solely from a legal perspective? Does the disenfranchisement of such a massive number of people not raise questions of morality and democratic legitimacy? Can such moral considerations inform legal arguments, even while acknowledging that the Election Commission has the authority to undertake a clean-up of electoral rolls?
— B Sivaraman, Mylapore, Chennai
A former Election Commissioner recently went on record to say that "SIR may be legal but not moral". That may well be off the mark.
The introduction of SIR has definitely altered the outcome of elections. In its petition before the Supreme Court, the Trinamool Congress complained that its candidates lost by margins exactly equal to the SIR deletions.
The Supreme Court has moved in different directions on this issue. However, after much persuasion, it appointed retired judges as Tribunals to decide the legality of deletions. Unsatisfied with their performance, it then appointed retired High Court judges as Appellate Tribunals in Bengal.
But when complaints were made about inordinate delays in hearing appeals, Justice Joymalya Bagchi remarked that 2026 was not the last election and that there would be many more to come in which they could vote.
SIR was certainly bulldozed to alter the course of results, and when the SC will comprehensively decide the matter remains unknown.
Even as the Assembly has adopted a resolution seeking to make Tamil the principal language of the Madras High Court, performing kumbabisekams in Tamil continues to face various practical hurdles. Though several court verdicts have permitted Tamil chanting alongside Sanskrit slokas during consecration ceremonies, the recent plea seeking inclusion of Tamil in the Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple consecration was rejected on the ground that Odhuvars’ recitations are already part of the ceremony. However, legally and ritually, the recitation of Tamil hymns by Odhuvars cannot be considered an exact replacement or a strict statutory equivalent to the Sanskrit mantras prescribed for consecration. Why are courts reluctant to facilitate Tamil either in court or in temples?
— K Manivasagam, Chennai
Until the issue of the language used in prayer and its relation to God and religion is decided, the debate over which language is closer to God will continue. This is not an issue peculiar to Hindus alone; other major religions faced similar questions several centuries ago.
In 2008, sitting on a Division Bench, I wrote: "The attempt to portray as if God can understand only Devanagari language is stated only to be rejected, and it does not have any foundation based upon any scripture or religious text" (VS Srikumar, 2008).
What is peculiar to South India, except Kerala, is the pressing into service of the so-called Agama Sastras to be followed, which includes chanting mantras in a particular language.
The High Court is now counting how many temples fall under this category. To that extent, there are no language difficulties for non-Agama temples. But it is a shame that the majority of devotees never understand a word of those mantras, yet they are made to put up with them.
While the Thengalai sect of Vaishnavites has won the language war and recites prayers in Tamil, the same cannot be said for the Saivites, where Tamil madathipathies have lost out in God's language war.
Courts do not play a proactive role in this part of the country.