Home  > Recent Judgements  > ECI Cannot Rely on Article 324 to Justify Special Intensive Revision (SIR) When RP Act Does Not Recognise Present Process: Petitioners to Supreme Court 

Nov  28- 2025

ECI Cannot Rely on Article 324 to Justify Special Intensive Revision (SIR) When RP Act Does Not Recognise Present Process: Petitioners to Supreme Court

‘How can BLOs determine citizenship?’ asked the petitioners.

Case Title: ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ORS. VERSUS ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA & CONNECTED MATTERS

Introduction

A series of petitions filed before the Supreme Court of India has brought the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls under sharp judicial scrutiny. The petitioners including the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), RJD MP Manoj Jha, and several civil society actors contend that the ECI’s present SIR mechanism exceeds its statutory mandate under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (RP Act), and undermines established constitutional safeguards.

Appearing before a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the Commission cannot invoke its plenary power under Article 324 of the Constitution to justify a process that is not recognized by Parliamentary legislation. The arguments raise fundamental questions about the limits of the ECI’s administrative authority, citizenship verification, and voters’ rights under India’s constitutional and statutory framework.

Background: What Is the Special Intensive Revision (SIR)?

The SIR process, as currently implemented, involves:

  • Door-to-door verification by Booth Level Officers (BLOs)
  • Mandatory submission of enumeration forms not recognized under the RP Act or Rules
  • Verification of citizenship status, particularly of voters born between 2003–2007
  • Mass scale checks in entire States including Bihar and potentially West Bengal

The petitioners argue that this large-scale verification effectively amounts to a citizenship determination exercise, something neither the ECI nor BLOs have jurisdiction to undertake.

Core Legal Question

Can the Election Commission rely on Article 324 to conduct an SIR process that is not expressly authorized by the RP Act, 1950 or the Rules framed under it?

This forms the crux of the challenge.

The Petitioners’ Arguments

  1. No statutory basis for the present SIR: RP act occupies the field

Senior Advocate Dr AM Singhvi emphasized that:

  • The RP Act and Rules fully occupy the field regarding electoral roll preparation.
  • When a Parliamentary law exists, Article 324 cannot override or supplement it in a way that contradicts the statute.

Key Precedent: AC Jose v. Sivan Pillai (1984)

The Supreme Court held:

“Where there is an Act and express Rules, the Commission cannot override them. The Commission’s powers supplement, not supplant the law.”

The petitioners rely heavily on this principle.

  1. Enumeration forms used in the SIR have no legal recognition

Singhvi pointed out that:

  • The forms used for SIR verification (enquiring into citizenship, parentage, etc.) have no basis in the RP Act, the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, or any statutory notification.
  • The ECI cannot introduce new obligations on voters without statutory authority.
  1. Citizenship determination is beyond ECI’s jurisdiction

Kapil Sibal’s submission:

It is “dangerous” and legally untenable for BLOs often school teachers or local government employees to assess whether a person is:

  1. a citizen of India, and
  2. not an illegal migrant.

Sibal illustrated ground realities:

  • Many voters cannot produce birth certificates of their parents.
  • Illiteracy and lack of documentation make compliance impossible.
  • BLOs lack training or authority to decide citizenship, an issue governed by the Citizenship Act, 1955 and adjudicated by competent authorities, not election officials.

Reference to ECI’s own electoral manual:

When doubt exists about a voter’s citizenship:

  • The Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) must refer the matter to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs.
  • Even here, ECI cannot autonomously determine citizenship.

Thus, the petitioners argue that the SIR effectively bypasses the established statutory process.

  1. SIR must be an individualised exercise and not a blanket operation

Dr Singhvi’s key argument:

  • Under Section 21(3) of the RP Act, special revision can be conducted for:
    • a specific constituency
    • or part of a constituency
    • under circumstances requiring revision (e.g., natural calamity)

But:

  • Conducting SIR for an entire State, such as Bihar or West Bengal, is not contemplated under the Act.
  • The law allows only individualised/bilateral verification, not mass re-verification of every voter.

Form 7 mechanism already exists

Any individual’s entry can be challenged through Form 7 (Objection to inclusion/deletion).

Mass verification circumvents this individualized statutory safeguard.

  1. Article 324 Cannot Be Used to Expand ECI’s Jurisdiction

Petitioners emphasized:

  • Article 324’s plenary powers are subject to Article 327, which empowers Parliament to legislate on elections.
  • Once Parliament enacts a law (RP Act), ECI cannot create parallel procedures inconsistent with that law.
  1. SIR violates reasonableness & voter rights

Citing procedural unreasonableness, Sibal argued:

  • Requiring every voter to produce documents (passport, Aadhaar, parent’s birth certificate) is inherently unreasonable.
  • Voters excluded from the roll risk losing access to government welfare schemes, which are linked to Aadhaar/voter ID databases.

This raises constitutional concerns under:

  • Article 14 (non-arbitrariness)
  • Article 21 (right to livelihood, dignity)
  • Article 326 (right to vote)

ECI’s Response

The Election Commission, represented by Advocate Ekalavya Dwivedi, argued:

  • BLOs merely collect information; final verification lies with the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO).
  • The SIR is necessary to maintain purity and accuracy of electoral rolls in high-migration States.

However, the Court has sought normative clarity:

  • Does the methodology conform with the RP Act, Rules, and the Constitution?

Judicial Interventions & Bench’s Queries

  1. Bench’s Prima Facie View (Earlier Hearings)

The Court earlier suggested that Section 21(3) may permit SIR.

  1. Key Concern: Normative Legitimacy

Justice Bagchi asked whether the ECI’s SIR process:

  • aligns with constitutionally permissible methods, and
  • respects statutory limits under RP Act and Citizenship Act.
  1. On Ground Realities

The Bench noted:

  • No widespread complaints were filed in Bihar alleging wrongful deletion during the SIR.

However, this does not independently validate the legality of the process.

Broader Implications

  1. Citizenship Determination Through Electoral Revision?

If ECI’s SIR is upheld:

  • Electoral rolls may become a de facto citizenship filter- a function Parliament has not assigned to ECI.
  1. Risk of Mass Disenfranchisement

Large-scale exclusions could disproportionately affect:

  • Migrant workers
  • Minorities
  • Economically weaker groups
  • Illiterate or document-poor populations
  1. Institutional Limits on ECI’s Power

The case will shape how broadly Article 324 can be invoked.

  1. Separation of Powers

Should administrative agencies be allowed to create new obligations without Parliamentary sanction?

Key Legal Provisions Involved

Constitution

  • Article 324: Superintendence, direction, and control of elections by ECI
  • Article 327: Parliament’s power to legislate on elections
  • Article 326: Adult suffrage

Statutes

  • Representation of the People Act, 1950
  • Citizenship Act, 1955
  • Registration of Electors Rules, 1960

Important Precedents Cited

  • AC Jose v. Sivan Pillai (1984) – ECI’s powers cannot override statute
  • Lal Babu Hussein v. Electoral Registration Officer – ECI cannot decide citizenship
  • PUCL v. Union of India (Aadhaar-EPIC linking) – procedural safeguards in voter identification

To conclude

The Supreme Court’s eventual ruling will likely have nationwide implications for electoral administration. At stake are:

  • the scope of ECI’s powers,
  • citizens’ right to vote,
  • the balance between statutory law and constitutional authority, and
  • the potential conflation of citizenship verification with electoral roll maintenance.

The Bench continues to hear arguments on constitutional, statutory, and practical dimensions of the SIR, and its judgment could reshape the future architecture of India’s electoral processes.