Karnataka HC asks State, poll bodies to respond to plea challenging parallel SIR for Greater Bengaluru wards

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday sought the response of the State, the Election Commission of India (ECI), and the Karnataka State Election Commission (KSEC) to a plea against KSEC's decision to undertake a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls for select Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA) wards.

The petitioner has questioned why such a parallel exercise is being undertaken for these wards when the ECI is already carrying out a nationwide SIR.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj today ordered the issuance of notice of the plea to all respondent-authorities and granted them one week's time to file their respective responses.

The matter has been posted for further hearing on July 15.

The petition has been filed by Bengaluru residents M Vivek, M Srinath, ST Manjunatha, TR Satish and KR Anand Murthy, questioning the legality of the KSEC's June 19 order directing a separate SIR of electoral rolls for specified Greater Bengaluru Authority wards.

According to the petition, the ECI had already launched a nationwide SIR of electoral rolls, with Karnataka included in Phase III. Under the ECI's notified schedule, Assembly constituency electoral rolls were frozen as on June 16, 2026, and the revision process is scheduled to conclude with publication of the final rolls on October 7, 2026.

The petition states that just three days later, the Karnataka State Election Commission independently ordered a separate SIR for specified GBA wards, freezing electoral rolls as on April 18, 2026, and prescribing a compressed five-week schedule ending on July 31, 2026, purportedly on the basis of complaints received from local political parties.

The petitioners argue that the State Commission's decision has resulted in two simultaneous revision exercises for the same electorate, with different freeze dates, qualifying dates and overlapping field operations in the same households, causing confusion among voters and duplication of administrative work.

It further argues that the Greater Bengaluru Governance (Registration of Electors) Rules, 2025, particularly Rules 3 and 30, require the State Election Commission to adopt the Assembly electoral rolls prepared by the ECI and do not authorise it to undertake an independent Special Intensive Revision.

The plea also relies on Article 243ZA of the Constitution, contending that while the provision vests the State Election Commission with superintendence over the preparation of electoral rolls for local body elections, it does not empower it to carry out an independent revision separate from the Assembly electoral rolls prepared by the ECI.

Additionally, the petition challenges Section 35 of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act to the extent it could be interpreted as conferring such authority, arguing that such an interpretation would be ultra vires Articles 243ZA, 325 and 326 of the Constitution, which envisage a single, unified electoral roll.

The petition also alleges that the KSEC's order is arbitrary, unreasoned and issued in haste, resulting in unnecessary expenditure of public resources through duplicate deployment of Booth Level Officers (BLOs) and Booth Level Agents (BLAs).

Advocate Venkatesh Dalawai appeared for the petitioners in today's hearing.

Advocate General K Shashi Kiran Shetty represented the State.

Advocate Vaishali Hegde accepted notice for the Karnataka State Election Commission.

Advocate SR Dodwad accepted notice for the ECI.