The Supreme Court on Thursday expressed concerns over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls conducted in Bihar by the Election Commission of India (ECI), observing that the exercise may require a stronger constitutional and statutory basis.
The Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi today continued hearing submissions on a batch of petitions challenging the validity of the SIR and seeking its suspension.
Appearing for PUCL and seven political parties, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the SIR process could only be initiated through delegated legislation framed under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (RP Act), and its rules.
By relying solely on Article 324 of the Constitution, the ECI had exceeded its jurisdiction and attempted to introduce substantive changes to the electoral registration framework without statutory backing, noted Singhvi, adding that the constitutional scheme envisaged that any significant alteration in electoral procedures must emanate either from Parliament or State Legislatures, not through unilateral administrative directions.
He argued that despite being a constitutional authority, ECI could not assume a quasi-legislative role—a principle underscored in decisions such as AC Jose vs. Sivan Pillai (1984).
The Bench observed that if Singhvi’s submissions were accepted in their entirety, the Commission might have no residual authority to conduct any form of special revision. However, if the Commission invoked powers for a special revision, it must be prepared to justify such an exercise and demonstrate its necessity beyond routine updates, added the Court.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal questioned the competence of Booth Level Officers (BLOs) to determine the disqualification of a voter. BLOs, often school teachers or clerical staff, could not be entrusted with adjudicatory functions of this nature, which required statutory and procedural safeguards. While disqualification from rolls was determined under Section 16 of the Representation of the People (RP) Act, findings of unsoundness of mind arise from courts, and age was established through documentary proof such as Aadhaar. Any intensive revision contrary to this would be ultra vires, he added.
The Senior Advocate further contended that the SIR framework, which obliged the citizens to submit forms to retain or validate their entries on electoral rolls, represented a substantive deviation from the established regime.
Sibal drew attention to the practical burden placed on citizens, likening it to concerns previously raised under the Foreigners Act, where questions of lineage and documentation could prove disproportionately onerous.
Justice Bagchi noted that the legality of the ECI’s notices must be assessed within the broader statutory and normative scheme established by the RP Act and allied laws.
The Court also considered whether the selective application of special revision procedures across constituencies could withstand scrutiny on grounds of rational classification and proportionality. It examined whether the Commission could rectify inaccuracies such as deceased or duplicate entries in some constituencies while overlooking similar issues elsewhere.
Singhvi emphasised that successive revisions since 2003 had already established stable classifications for the electoral roll and that reopening these categories without express legislative authority lacked rational nexus. He argued that mass-scale exercises of this nature cannot be undertaken unless expressly empowered by Parliament.
Noting that Section 22 of the RP Act also required scrutiny, the Bench said it would interpret the provisions individually before examining the propriety of the ECI’s conduct. The Apex Court listed the case for further hearing on December 2.
The post Supreme Court questions legality of electoral rolls revision in Bihar appeared first on India Legal.