SC says ECI must follow constitutional limits in voter roll revision

Hearing a batch of petitions challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls undertaken across several states, the Supreme Court on Thursday flagged limits on the Election Commission of India’s (ECI’s) discretion under Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.

 

The court observed that the provision, which allows the Commission to carry out a special revision “in such manner as it may think fit”, does not confer unchecked or absolute power and must operate within constitutional boundaries and principles of natural justice.

 

A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing submissions by senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the Election Commission of India.

 

During the hearing, Justice Bagchi questioned whether the Commission could depart from the existing statutory framework governing electoral roll revisions, particularly Rule 13 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, under which Form 6 prescribes the procedure for claims and objections.

 

The Bench asked whether the ECI could insist on a different and expanded set of documents for SIR beyond those recognised under Form 6.

 

Referring to the discrepancy between the documents listed in Form 6 and those required under the SIR exercise, Justice Bagchi sought clarity on whether the Commission could increase, exclude or substitute documentary requirements relating to proof of birth or residence, and disregard documents otherwise accepted under the rules.

 

Dwivedi responded by relying on Section 21(2)(a) of the Act, which permits deviation from the prescribed manner of revision if the Election Commission issues a written direction to that effect. He argued that revision of electoral rolls need not always be confined strictly to the statutory rules and that special circumstances could justify departures from the usual procedure.

 

Justice Bagchi, however, emphasised that the phrase “prescribed manner” necessarily refers to the rules framed under the Act, and any deviation would require careful justification. Dwivedi countered that Section 21(3), which governs special intensive revisions, begins with a non-obstante clause and must be read independently of Section 21(2). According to him, the power under Section 21(3) is a distinct and standalone authority vested in the ECI.

 

The provision, he pointed out, expressly allows the Commission to direct a special revision “in such manner as it may think fit”, thereby granting discretion over the methodology of SIR. On a query from the Bench as to whether the nature and depth of inquiry under Sections 21(2) and 21(3) were comparable, Dwivedi submitted that deviations from the prescribed rules might be impermissible under Section 21(2), but not under Section 21(3), given the broader language used in the latter.

 

Chief Justice Surya Kant then raised concerns about transparency, noting that revisions under Section 21(3) could have serious civil consequences for voters. Even if the Commission’s interpretation were accepted, the CJI asked whether the process adopted should not, at a minimum, meet the standards of transparency applicable to regular revisions under Section 21(2).

 

In response, Dwivedi clarified that the ECI was not asserting the power to conduct SIR in disregard of constitutional safeguards. He submitted that any special revision must satisfy the requirements of fairness, reasonableness and transparency under Article 14, uphold the principle of adult suffrage under Article 326, and ensure ease of participation for voters.

 

Justice Bagchi reiterated that no statutory power could be absolute or unregulated, a proposition with which Dwivedi agreed. The Chief Justice further observed that while Section 21(3) does not use the term “prescribed”, unlike other clauses in Section 21, the expression “in such manner” necessarily implies adherence to established principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.

 

The Bench will continue hearing the matter on Friday.

 

The petitions have been filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms against the Election Commission of India.