The Supreme Court on Thursday expressed concerns over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls conducted in Bihar, noting that the exercise undertaken by the Election Commission of India (ECI) may require a stronger constitutional and statutory basis.
The Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi made these observations while hearing 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.
He maintained that the Election Commission of India (ECI), by relying solely on Article 324 of the Constitution, was exceeding its jurisdiction and attempting to introduce substantive changes to the electoral registration framework without statutory backing.
According to him, the constitutional scheme envisaged that any significant alteration in electoral procedures must emanate from Parliament or State Legislatures, not through unilateral administrative directions.
He reiterated that the ECI, despite being a constitutional authority, cannot 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 interpretation were accepted in its entirety, the Commission might have no residual authority to conduct any form of special revision. It nevertheless stated that 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.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal questioned the competence of Booth Level Officers (BLOs) to determine whether a voter suffers from the disqualification of “unsoundness of mind,” a determination that, under Section 16 of the RP Act, lies solely within judicial competence.
He argued that BLOs, often school teachers or clerical staff, could not be entrusted with adjudicatory functions of this nature, which require statutory and procedural safeguards.
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 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.
The Bench stated that it intended to examine the matter independently of the Commission’s past practices and 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.