Courts Cannot Fix Timelines for Electoral Roll Revisions: ECI Tells Supreme Court
ECI Defends Its Constitutional Authority
The Election Commission of India (ECI) has categorically told the Supreme Court that courts cannot mandate fixed timelines for special intensive revisions (SIR) of electoral rolls. In an affidavit filed on Friday, the ECI asserted that such decisions lie solely within its constitutional and statutory authority, as provided under Article 324 of the Constitution, the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
The Commission emphasized that it enjoys complete discretion over the preparation and revision of rolls and warned that any judicial interference in fixing mandatory timelines would amount to encroachment upon its plenary powers.
PIL Seeks Nationwide Special Electoral Roll Revisions
The affidavit was filed in response to a public interest litigation (PIL) by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay. His petition demanded mandatory nationwide special intensive revisions, especially before parliamentary, assembly, and local body elections.
Upadhyay argued that such revisions were necessary to prevent illegal immigrants and fraudulent entries from influencing India’s polity and policy. His plea claimed that large-scale infiltration, religious conversions, and demographic changes have distorted voter rolls in nearly 200 districts and 1,500 tehsils since Independence.
Ongoing Row in Bihar’s Special Revision
The ECI’s firm stand coincides with the special revision exercise in Bihar, announced in June 2025, which has sparked political controversy. With assembly elections due later this year, the INDIA opposition bloc accused the Commission of manipulating voter rolls to favor certain parties.
The ECI, however, dismissed the allegations and urged political parties to help genuine voters rather than staging protests.
Aadhaar as Valid Document for Voter Inclusion
On September 8, the Supreme Court, while hearing Upadhyay’s plea, directed that Aadhaar be accepted as the twelfth valid document for inclusion in Bihar’s electoral rolls.
The bench, led by Justice Surya Kant, intervened after complaints that election officials were rejecting Aadhaar despite earlier directions. The court clarified that while Aadhaar does not prove citizenship, it remains a valid indicator of identity and residence.
ECI’s Legal Position on Roll Revisions
Reiterating its independence, the ECI cited Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, which empowers it to conduct summary or intensive revisions at its discretion. The law, it noted, does not prescribe a fixed timeline for revisions.
The affidavit pointed out that on June 24, 2025, the Commission had already decided to carry out a special intensive revision with January 1, 2026, as the qualifying date. Pre-revision activities have been initiated, and a conference of state chief electoral officers was held in New Delhi on September 10 to review preparations.
Petition Highlights Concerns Over Electoral Integrity
Upadhyay’s petition cited the 1997 Assam voter verification drive, which flagged “D-voters” (doubtful voters) and referred their cases to Foreigners Tribunals, as a precedent. He argued for similar drives in Bihar, West Bengal, and Jharkhand, claiming Bihar alone may have 8,000–10,000 illegal or duplicate entries per constituency.
The plea also sought action against those facilitating fake documents and other measures to ensure free and fair elections under Articles 324 and 326 of the Constitution.
Supreme Court Hearing and ECI’s Firm Stand
Responding, the ECI maintained that it is fully committed to ensuring the purity and integrity of electoral rolls but insisted that the frequency and manner of revisions must remain its prerogative.
“The ECI has complete discretion over the policy of revision to the exclusion of any other authority. The petition deserves to be dismissed,” the affidavit concluded.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court is now tasked with balancing the demand for tighter voter verification against the ECI’s insistence on its constitutional autonomy. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for electoral integrity, federalism, and the powers of independent institutions in India’s democracy.
Comments
Post a Comment