The Supreme Court of India questioned the Election Commission of India (ECI) on Wednesday, January 21, 2026, regarding its deviations from established procedures during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) 2025 of electoral rolls. While acknowledging the ECI’s broad discretionary powers, the court asserted that these powers are not absolute and must adhere to principles of natural justice and the Registration of Electors Rules of 1960.
Supreme Court Scrutinizes ECI’s Revision Process
The core of the court’s concern centers on the ECI’s expansion of accepted documentation for voter registration. Justices questioned whether the ECI could legitimately increase the number of required documents, moving from six notified documents in Form 6 to eleven in the current SIR exercise, without a clear legal basis. Justice Joymalya Bagchi specifically asked the ECI to justify increasing or eliminating prescribed documents.
Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing the ECI, argued that the SIR 2025 is permissible under Article 324 of the Constitution, which grants the ECI superintendence, direction, and control over electoral rolls and elections, and Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. Section 21(3) provides the ECI with the authority to direct special revisions “in such manner as it may think fit.”
However, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant emphasized that any special revision impacting a voter’s rights must be transparent. While Mr. Dwivedi conceded that deviations must uphold constitutional guarantees of equality, transparency, and ease of voting, he maintained that Section 21(3) allows the ECI to operate beyond prescribed limits, provided reasons are recorded and procedures are just.
The Question of Established Rules
Justice Bagchi countered that Rule 25 of the 1960 Rules places limitations on the ECI’s discretion, requiring intensive revisions to adhere to procedures outlined in Rules 4 to 23. He stated, “Rule 25 puts the shackles on you… It cannot be that an authority, however high, can be untrammelled or unregulated…”
The court also revisited the ECI’s decision to exclude the Aadhaar card from the list of eleven indicative documents, a decision the court previously challenged during a similar exercise in Bihar, ultimately ordering its inclusion.
The Justices underscored the importance of conducting revisions in conformity with the principles of natural justice, emphasizing the need for fairness and just procedures.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls?
The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) 2025 is an exercise undertaken by the ECI to revise electoral rolls, potentially including additions, deletions, and corrections of voter information.
What is the central issue the Supreme Court is addressing?
The Supreme Court is examining whether the ECI’s deviations from the established Registration of Electors Rules of 1960 during the SIR 2025 exercise are permissible, particularly regarding the documentation required for voter registration.
What is Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950?
Section 21(3) of the Act grants the ECI the power to direct a special revision of electoral rolls “in such manner as it may think fit,” providing a degree of flexibility in how these revisions are conducted.
As the court deliberates, it remains to be seen whether the ECI will be required to modify its procedures for the SIR 2025. A possible next step could involve the ECI providing further justification for its expanded documentation requirements, or the court issuing specific directives to ensure adherence to the 1960 Rules. It is also likely the court will continue to emphasize the importance of transparency and fairness in the electoral process.
How important is it to you that electoral processes are both efficient and consistently applied, even if it means limiting the discretion of the Election Commission?
Worth a look