More Stories

Informist, Wednesday, May 27, 2026

 

--SC upholds poll panel's move to conduct special intensive revision exercise

 

NEW DELHI – The Supreme Court Wednesday upheld the Election Commission of India's directive to conduct special intensive revision of electoral rolls in states such as Bihar, West Bengal, and Assam. A bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said the special intensive revision exercise was founded upon a legitimate and constitutionally grounded purpose – the restoration of accuracy, completeness and integrity of electoral rolls.

 

The special intensive revision exercise is not violative of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and its rules. Rather, it breathes life into the constitutional mandate under Article 324 of the Indian Constitution. When the statute itself authorises a special revision at any time in such a manner as the Election Commission may deem fit, the exercise cannot be invalidated merely because it does not conform in every respect to the ordinary modalities contemplated for routine revision, the court said. 

 

The bench, also comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi, said the court was satisfied that the object sought to be achieved by special intensive revision bears a direct nexus to the constitutional goal of free and fair elections. Free and fair elections do not rest merely upon the mechanics of polling, the bench said, adding that elections fundamentally depend upon the integrity, accuracy and credibility of electoral rolls, which form the foundation of the democratic process.

 

The reasons recorded by the Election Commission of India, namely the passage of more than four decades since the last intensive revision, large-scale additions and deletions over the years, rapid urbanisation, migration and the resulting possibility of repetition and inaccuracies in the electoral rolls, were clearly directed towards preserving the foundational integrity of elections, the apex court said. It said it was unable to conclude that the exercise was a process resorted to solely for administrative convenience.

 

The apex court rejected objections that inclusion of limited documents for verifying names in the electoral rolls was arbitrary or devoid of rational basis. Any verification exercise necessarily requires a structured framework, the court said, adding that the prescription of a set of documents is intended to ensure administrative consistency and evidentiary reliability. It said that these documents were ordinarily available with electors and expansion of the list also demonstrates an attempt to widen the range of acceptable proof rather than to restrict it. 

 

In the course of preparing or revising electoral rolls, the Election Commission of India is undoubtedly empowered to examine questions bearing upon citizenship, said the court. However, such an inquiry can only be undertaken from the limited standpoint of determining inclusion or exclusion from electoral rolls and must be carried out with due regard to the presumption operating in favour of an elector whose name already exists on the rolls, said the court. Such an inquiry does not amount to a determination of citizenship in the strict sense and any action taken pursuant thereto is confined to electoral consequences alone, it said.

 

Regarding those whose names have been deleted from the 2003 electoral rolls on the grounds that the poll panel had formed the opinion that they are not citizens, the election commission will refer such cases within four weeks to the competent authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955, for determination of their citizenship claims, the court said. The competent authority will take necessary steps in accordance with law and conclude the process before the next Vidhan Sabha or local body elections, whichever is earlier, after giving notice and affording an opportunity of hearing to the individuals concerned. All those domiciled in Bihar whose names may have been erroneously deleted on the grounds of their absence, but who continue to reside within the state, will also be entitled to submit representations before the election authorities, it said. 

 

The top court was hearing petitions filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms, a non-governmental organisation, Rashtriya Janata Dal Member of Parliament Manoj Jha, human rights group The People's Union for Civil Liberties, activist Yogendra Yadav, and All India Trinamool Congress Member of Parliament Mahua Moitra. The petitioners had contested the commission's decision to hold a special intensive revision of electoral rolls in Bihar, West Bengal and other states.

 

The petitioners had contested whether the Election Commission of India could determine citizenship at all. The process was rushed through in Bihar while parts of the state were reeling under floods, leading to disenfranchisement of many eligible voters, including religious minorities, the petitioners said. 

 

The petitioners said the revision was violative of Articles 14, 19, 21, 325, and 326 of the Constitution, as well as provisions of The Representation of the People Act and Rule 21A of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. If the Election Commission's order wasn't set aside, it could arbitrarily and without due process disfranchise millions of voters from electing their representatives, disrupting free and fair elections and democracy in the country, which are part of the basic structure of the Constitution, the petitioners said. 

 

Initially, the documents listed for consideration for the exercise included a birth certificate issued by the competent authority, passport, matriculation certificate issued by recognised boards, permanent residence certificate, forest rights certificate, and a caste certificate issued by the competent authority. Later, the apex court had asked the poll panel to include Aadhaar as one of the 'indicative' documents that voters could file as proof of their identity or residence. 

 

After the conduct of special intensive revision of electoral rolls, more than 52 million names have been deleted from electoral rolls across 12 states and one Union territory. Uttar Pradesh recorded the highest net deletion of voters in absolute numbers at 20.40 million, followed by West Bengal at 8.4 million, according to media reports.  End

 

Reported by Surya Tripathi

Edited by Avishek Dutta

 

For users of real-time market data terminals, Informist news is available exclusively on the NSE Cogencis WorkStation.

 

Cogencis news is now Informist news. This follows the acquisition of Cogencis Information Services Ltd. by NSE Data & Analytics Ltd., a 100% subsidiary of the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. As a part of the transaction, the news department of Cogencis has been sold to Informist Media Pvt. Ltd.

 

Informist Media Tel +91 (11) 4220-1000

Send comments to feedback@informistmedia.com

 

© Informist Media Pvt. Ltd. 2026. All rights reserved.