Supreme Court Petition Seeks Regular Roll Revisions
The Election Commission of India (ECI) has informed the Supreme Court that any attempt to compel the poll body to conduct special intensive revisions (SIR) of electoral rolls at fixed intervals would encroach upon its exclusive constitutional domain. The statement came in response to a petition filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, who sought directions to ensure SIRs are carried out regularly across the country, especially before elections.
The petitioner argued that regular revisions were vital to guarantee that only Indian citizens determine the polity and policy of the nation. He urged the apex court to mandate such revisions in order to prevent duplicate entries, ineligible voters, and possible inclusion of foreign nationals.
EC’s Counter-Affidavit on Constitutional Powers
In its counter-affidavit, the ECI emphasized that Article 324 of the Constitution vests it with plenary powers regarding the “superintendence, direction and control” of elections and preparation of electoral rolls. The Commission maintained that this authority cannot be overridden by external directions, since courts have consistently recognized its autonomy in such matters.
The affidavit added that Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, allows revision of rolls without binding it to a strict timeline. The provision only requires revisions before general, assembly, or bye-elections. Similarly, Rule 25 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, empowers the ECI to decide whether an intensive or summary revision is appropriate, depending on prevailing circumstances.
Pre-Revisions Ordered Ahead of 2026 Qualifying Date
Highlighting its proactive approach, the poll body informed the court that through its July 5, 2025, directive, it had already instructed all Chief Electoral Officers (CEOs)—except Bihar, where the process had begun earlier—to initiate pre-revision activities with reference to January 1, 2026, as the qualifying date. The ECI noted that it had also convened a conference of all state and Union Territory CEOs in New Delhi on September 10 to discuss the nationwide exercise.
Bihar’s Special Intensive Revision Sparks Debate
Bihar became the first state since 2003 to undergo an SIR exercise following the Commission’s June 24 notification. The initiative aimed to clean voter rolls by deleting names of deceased individuals, duplicate entries, and those suspected to be illegal immigrants. According to the ECI, the total number of registered voters in Bihar dropped from 7.9 crore before the exercise to 7.24 crore after its completion.
The final electoral roll in Bihar is scheduled for publication on September 30. However, the move sparked political controversy, with opposition parties alleging that the revision was designed to suppress voter rights. The ECI countered that the purpose was purely to uphold the integrity of the electoral process.
Aadhaar in Electoral Roll Exercise
The Supreme Court had earlier directed the inclusion of Aadhaar as one of the 11 prescribed identity documents for the Bihar SIR. The apex court clarified, however, that Aadhaar could not serve as proof of citizenship. Instead, it allowed the poll panel to verify the genuineness of Aadhaar numbers submitted during the revision.
The Commission welcomed this order, noting that Aadhaar would aid in identifying duplicate or fraudulent entries while ensuring genuine voters remained unaffected.
Exclusive Jurisdiction Maintained
The ECI concluded its affidavit by reiterating that it is fully cognizant of its responsibility to preserve the purity of electoral rolls. It underlined that its June 24 directive to conduct SIRs in multiple states showed its commitment to this responsibility. Any external imposition of timelines or methods, the Commission cautioned, would undermine its constitutional independence.
By seeking dismissal of the petition, the ECI signaled that while it welcomes scrutiny, it cannot allow judicial directions to replace its discretionary powers. The case has rekindled debate about balancing judicial oversight with institutional autonomy in India’s electoral process.
