Supreme Court Upholds ECI’s Decision on Special Intensive Revision of Voter List in Bihar

Supreme Court Upholds ECI’s Decision on Special Intensive Revision of Voter List in Bihar

Supreme Court recently upheld the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) decision to undertake a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, affirming that purification and updating of voter lists fall within the Commission’s constitutional mandate to ensure free and fair elections.

More on the News

¨     The challenge before the Supreme Court arose from petitions questioning the legality of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), alleging that the exercise could lead to large-scale disenfranchisement and impose onerous documentation requirements on voters.

¨     A two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) v. Election Commission of India case upheld the ECI’s power to conduct the revision, observing that preparation and maintenance of accurate electoral rolls constitute a core constitutional responsibility of the Commission under Article 324 of the Constitution.

¨     The Court clarified that while the ECI possesses the authority to verify electoral rolls, the exercise must be conducted in a fair, transparent, and non-discriminatory manner consistent with constitutional guarantees.

¨     The judgment comes amid a broader debate on electoral integrity, voter registration, migration, duplication of entries, and the inclusion-exclusion balance in electoral roll management.

Key Highlights of the Verdict

¨     Electoral Roll Purification as a Constitutional Duty: The Court held that preparation, maintenance, and periodic purification of electoral rolls are integral to the ECI’s constitutional responsibility of conducting free and fair elections.It observed that an accurate electoral roll is the foundation of electoral democracy and that periodic verification is necessary to remove duplicate, shifted, deceased, and otherwise ineligible entries.

¨     ECI’s Authority to Conduct Special Intensive Revision:The judgment reaffirmed that the ECI possesses the constitutional and statutory authority under Article 324 and the Representation of the People Act, 1950, to undertake a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) whenever necessary.The Court observed that constitutional bodies such as the ECI are entitled to a presumption of legality in the discharge of their statutory functions and that courts should not interfere unless actions are shown to be arbitrary or contrary to law.

¨     Legitimacy and Procedural Fairness of the Exercise: The Court held that the SIR pursues a legitimate constitutional objective of safeguarding the purity, credibility, and inclusiveness of the electoral process and satisfies the test of proportionality.It further found that the exercise is consistent with the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, which provide safeguards through claims, objections, corrections, and appeals.

¨     Citizenship Verification and Voter Eligibility:The Court observed that citizenship is a statutory requirement for voter registration and therefore cannot be completely ignored during electoral roll revision.However, it clarified that the ECI’s role is limited to determining electoral eligibility and that it cannot function as a citizenship adjudication authority or tribunal.