The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned whether the power of the Election Commission of India (ECI) to conduct a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls can be considered untrammelled and beyond judicial review.
The Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that revision of electoral lists can lead to civil consequences for citizens.
"Revision of voter list can lead to some civil consequences for a person who is on the list, so if something which will affect civil rights of people, then why should not the process followed be in accordance with sub-section 2?," CJI Kant observed.
The Court was referring to Section 21(2) of the Representation of the People (RP) Act which provides for preparation and revision of electoral rolls in a prescribed manner.
Justice Bagchi added that no power can be untrammeled.
"Rule 21 has a shackle of some sort. It says if intensive revision is being carried out, rules have to be prepared afresh and Rule 4 to 13 shall apply. See if we hold that ECI has the power...can we hold that such a power which is untrammelled and beyond judicial review powers?" he asked.
The Court was hearing a batch of petitions challenging the ECI's decision to conduct SIR of electoral rolls across different States.
Last year, the ECI had directed an SIR in Bihar. Multiple petitions, including those filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and the National Federation for Indian Women (NFIW), challenged the legality of the process. Despite that, the ECI proceeded with the SIR in Bihar since the top court did not impose any stay on the same.
Subsequently, the ECI on October 27, 2025, extended the SIR to other states and union territories, including West Bengal, Kerala and Tamil Nadu. This led to multiple petitions challenging the same.
On January 19, the Court issued various directions to the ECI in respect of the ongoing SIR in West Bengal.
Today, Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, arguing for the ECI, argued that the ECI is permitted by law to conduct SIR. However, the Court asked whether in that process, ECI is exempted from following its rules.
Dwivedi responded that the RP Act itself prescribes a procedure.
"Are sub-section (2) of Section 21 and sub-section (3) of Section 21 of the same nature, either in terms of inquiry or in terms of the preparatory stage of the law? My humble submission is that they are not. Unless otherwise directed, the revision contemplated is to be carried out strictly in the prescribed manner.
Section 21 operates in a completely different domain. It is regulated by a distinct set of procedures. These procedures necessarily include fairness, reasonableness and due process. If Your Lordships see Section 21 read with Rule 25, the framework becomes clear. The statute itself prescribes the contours, including the five-year period...We are on ease of rights of voters and we cannot violate Article 326," he submitted.
During the hearing, Justice Bagchi explained why there was a need to monitor to electoral list after independence and partition of India.
"Vision of the parliament was that people were continuously coming in... Article 7 was there...that is why there was a need to continuously monitor the list. See in WB, Murshidabad...was in Pakistan on August 15, 1947. Then one part of it Kholna went to East Pakistan and one to India," the judge said.
Following this observation, Justice Bagchi also told CJI Kant that his mother was from East Pakistan.
The hearing in the matter will continue on Thursday.