Landmark judgment affirms constitutional and statutory authority of ECI under Article 324 and Section 21(3) of Representation of the People Act, 1950; emphasizes procedural safeguards and proportionality in electoral roll revision
In a significant verdict delivered on May 27, 2026, the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Association for Democratic Reforms and Ors. vs. Election Commission of India and Ors., upheld the authority of the Election Commission of India (ECI) to conduct a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls across the State of Bihar. The judgment, authored by Chief Justice Surya Kant along with Justice Joymalya Bagchi, affirmed that the ECI’s directive to undertake the SIR exercise is firmly rooted in the constitutional mandate under Article 324 and the statutory framework of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (RP Act), specifically Section 21(3).
The SIR exercise was initiated in Bihar after more than two decades since the last intensive revision in 2003. The Commission cited substantial demographic changes including rapid urbanization, migration, and duplication of entries as reasons necessitating a comprehensive state-wide roll revision ahead of the Legislative Assembly elections scheduled for November 2025. The petitioners challenged the exercise on grounds of constitutional overreach, arbitrariness, procedural unfairness, and potential disenfranchisement of millions of voters.
The Court carefully examined the interplay between the constitutional powers of the ECI under Article 324, which vests it with superintendence, direction, and control of elections, and the legislative authority of Parliament under Article 327 to enact laws relating to elections. Rejecting the petitioners’ narrow interpretation that Article 324 powers are residual and cannot be exercised once Parliament legislates, the Court held that these provisions are complementary and must be harmoniously construed. The judgment clarified that the ECI’s powers continue to exist alongside statutory regulations, enabling it to act within the law but also to fill gaps and implement necessary measures to ensure free and fair elections.
Focusing on Section 21(3) of the RP Act, the Court underscored that the provision explicitly empowers the ECI to direct a special revision of electoral rolls “in such manner as it may think fit,” for “any constituency or part of a constituency,” with reasons to be recorded. The Court interpreted the term “any” to include multiple or all constituencies in a state-wide exercise, especially when the reasons like migration and duplication are pervasive. It held that the special revision power is distinct from ordinary roll revision under Section 21(2) and is designed for extraordinary circumstances that demand flexible procedural modalities.
The Court found the reasons recorded by the ECI—such as the long gap since the last SIR, rapid urbanization, migration patterns, and the presence of duplicate and deceased entries—to be cogent and legitimate objectives directly connected to maintaining the integrity and accuracy of the electoral rolls. It rejected the petitioners’ argument that the statewide scale and documentation requirements were disproportionate or arbitrary. The Court emphasized that the ECI’s choice of procedural measures, including house-to-house enumeration, submission of prescribed government documents, and structured scrutiny followed by notice and appeal mechanisms, is proportionate and balanced by adequate safeguards to prevent arbitrary exclusion.
Addressing concerns about procedural compliance, the Court held that the SIR process does not contravene the procedural safeguards under Rule 21A of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, which governs deletion of names. The judgment explained that notice, hearing, and appeals were preserved in substance within the multi-stage SIR framework and that the draft electoral roll was provisional pending claims and objections. The Court also validated the ECI’s documentation regime, including the exclusion of certain documents such as the Electors Photo Identity Card (EPIC) and ration card, on the basis that they do not sufficiently establish eligibility or citizenship, while directing that Aadhaar Card be accepted as an additional identity document with verification.
On the crucial issue of citizenship scrutiny, the Court clarified that while formal determination of citizenship lies with the Central Government under the Citizenship Act, the ECI is constitutionally empowered to conduct limited inquiries into citizenship status for electoral purposes to satisfy itself that electors meet statutory requirements. Such inquiries are administrative and limited to inclusion or exclusion from the rolls and do not amount to adjudication of citizenship status. The Court directed that cases of persons deleted on citizenship grounds must be referred to the competent authority for adjudication within a stipulated timeframe.
The Supreme Court’s judgment thus provides a comprehensive framework affirming the constitutional and statutory powers of the Election Commission to conduct special intensive revisions of electoral rolls, balancing the imperatives of electoral integrity with the protection of voters’ rights through procedural fairness and proportionality.
Bottom Line:
The Election Commission of India is empowered to conduct a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls under Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and such revisions are consistent with constitutional and statutory mandates.
Statutory provision(s): Article 324 of the Constitution of India, Article 327 of the Constitution of India, Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, Rule 21A of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, Sections 16 and 19 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, Section 24(a) and 24(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, Section 9 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016
