The Election Commission (EC) has asserted its authority to determine the procedure for the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, citing the Representation of the People Act (RP Act). This stance has emerged amidst legal challenges to the ongoing SIR process, particularly concerning the extent of the EC's powers when implementing such revisions.
The core of the issue revolves around whether the EC can invoke its plenary powers under Article 324 of the Constitution to justify the SIR, especially when the RP Act, a parliamentary law, already governs the field. Petitioners challenging the SIR argue that once a law like the RP Act exists, the EC must operate within the confines of that statute. They contend that the current SIR process, specifically the enumeration forms used, lacks statutory recognition under the RP Act and its associated rules.
Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi have argued that the EC's powers are meant to supplement, not supplant, the existing laws and rules. They referenced a previous judgment stating that the EC cannot override the RP Act or its rules and must act in accordance with the law. According to the petitioners, unless the RP Act and its rules explicitly allow for the SIR in its current form, with the present enumeration forms, the EC cannot proceed based solely on its inherent powers under Article 324. They further argue that Article 327 grants Parliament the power to legislate on election-related matters, making Article 324 subject to parliamentary law.
Specifically, Section 21(3) of the RP Act has been a focal point of contention. Petitioners argue that this section only permits special revisions for a particular constituency or part thereof, not a blanket revision across all constituencies in a state. They describe the SIR as a revision conducted through an individualized, bilateral method within a limited constituency, not an "en masse" exercise. Radical peculiarities in the current SIR process, as pointed out, include its state-wide implementation, lack of individualization for any constituency, and deviation from the prescribed Form 7 under Section 21.
In response, the EC maintains that Section 21(3) of the RP Act does not require it to provide detailed reasons akin to an adjudication or quasi-judicial determination when undertaking a special revision. The EC contends that the reasons provided in its counter-affidavit are sufficient to justify the SIR. The EC's counsel argued that the order for an SIR is legislative in character, allowing the presentation of supporting circumstances in greater detail within the counter-affidavit.
The EC's stance is that it can establish its own procedures for the SIR as it deems fit, based on its interpretation of the RP Act. This position underscores the tension between the EC's constitutional mandate to conduct free and fair elections and the legal constraints imposed by parliamentary laws. The Supreme Court is currently hearing the arguments to decide on the legality of the SIR process.
The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is an initiative by the Election Commission of India (ECI) aimed at ensuring the accuracy and inclusivity of electoral rolls across the country. Announced on October 27, 2025, by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, the SIR seeks to include all eligible Indian citizens in the Electoral Roll (ER) and exclude any ineligible voters. The program involves house-to-house enumeration and complete re-verification, unlike the summary updates of standard annual revisions.
The last SIR conducted before the current one took place between 2002 and 2004. The qualifying date for the current SIR is January 1, 2026. Booth Level Officers (BLOs) are responsible for house-to-house enumeration, distributing pre-filled Annexure III forms with QR codes, though they do not collect documents during enumeration. The final electoral roll is scheduled to be published on February 14, 2026, with hearings concluding by February 7, 2026.
