ECI's Mass Voter Revision Subverts Parliament, Argue Petitioners in Supreme Court

New Delhi – The Supreme Court is currently seized with a profound constitutional question concerning the limits of the Election Commission of India's (ECI) authority, as petitioners argue that its ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls constitutes a legislative overreach that subverts the statutory framework established by Parliament. Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the petitioners, have mounted a formidable challenge, contending that the ECI cannot invoke its plenary powers under Article 324 of the Constitution to justify a process that lacks sanction under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (RP Act).

The bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, is dissecting the legality of the SIR, a large-scale exercise initiated in populous states like Bihar and West Bengal. Petitioners, including the Association for Democratic Reforms, argue that the SIR imposes citizenship-linked verification checks and documentation requirements that are not authorized by the RP Act, effectively creating a parallel and more onerous system for voter registration.

---

The Core Contention: Article 324 vs. The 'Occupied Field' Doctrine

The central pillar of the petitioners' case rests on the established legal principle of an "occupied field." Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal forcefully argued that once Parliament has enacted a comprehensive law governing a specific subject—in this case, the preparation and revision of electoral rolls under the RP Act, 1950—the ECI's operational mandate is confined within the four corners of that statute.

"The ECI cannot fall back upon its plenary powers under Article 324 of the Constitution of India to justify the SIR, since there are precedents which hold that once the field is occupied by the Parliamentary law (RP Act), then the EC has to act as per the statute," Sibal submitted.

Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi expanded on this, asserting that the ECI is not a "third chamber" of the legislature. He argued that the Commission cannot use Article 324 to introduce substantive requirements amounting to new legislation, particularly when the forms and documents it demands for the SIR are not traceable to the RP Act or the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. "Such a form," Singhvi noted, "can only come from delegated legislation." The petitioners maintain that the ECI’s process “subverts parliamentary intent.”

---

Delegating Sovereignty: The Unreasonableness of the BLO's Role

A significant portion of the petitioners' argument focused on the practical unreasonableness and questionable legality of the SIR's ground-level implementation. The process empowers a Booth Level Officer (BLO)—often a school teacher or a local government functionary—to conduct inquiries that effectively amount to a determination of a voter's citizenship.

Kapil Sibal highlighted the absurdity of this delegation, questioning how a voter could be expected to produce parental birth certificates or other archaic documents. "The enumerator asked him (the voter), please tell me when your father was born? Give me proof of that....how will you give that?" Sibal asked, illustrating the difficulties faced by many illiterate or undocumented citizens.

He posited that this reverses the burden of proof, mirroring the stringent Foreigners Act, 1946, and places an impossible onus on the citizen. The larger legal question, Sibal argued, is whether a BLO can statutorily possess the power to decide upon citizenship. "It is a dangerous proposition to have a teacher in school appointed as the BLO to have this right," he stated. Exclusion from the electoral roll based on such a summary inquiry, he warned, could have a cascading effect, potentially barring individuals from other government schemes and benefits.

Sibal also drew the Court's attention to the ECI's own Electoral Manual, which directs an Electoral Registration Officer to refer any doubts about citizenship to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs. The current SIR process, he contended, bypasses this established, albeit contentious, procedure.

---

An 'En Masse' Exercise Without Jurisdiction

Dr. Singhvi further assailed the very nature of the SIR, characterizing it as an impermissible 'en masse' or 'blanket exercise' fundamentally at odds with the statutory scheme. He argued that the RP Act, particularly under Section 21 and the associated Form 7 for objections, envisages an 'individuated exercise' for revising the rolls, typically on a limited, constituency-by-constituency basis.

"Never before in India, not under the ROPA and not under the Rules are you allowed an en masse right?" Singhvi emphatically questioned. He described the ECI's approach as treating "all the people of Bihar as temporary or presumptive entrants on the roll" until they can re-verify their status through a non-statutory process. This "massification," he argued, is an exercise of power the ECI is attempting to locate under Article 324, but it amounts to a "lack of jurisdiction."

Chief Justice Kant, however, challenged this line of reasoning, pointing out the potential consequence: "Going by your argument, the ECI will never have the power for SIR." Singhvi clarified that the ECI's revision powers are limited and must adhere to the bilateral, individualised methods prescribed by law. He stressed that the Commission cannot unilaterally presume the existing electoral roll to be a mere "presumption list" pending its own extra-statutory verification.

---

Judicial Scrutiny and Future Implications

The bench is carefully considering these arguments, with Justice Bagchi seeking to understand the issue on a 'normative plane'—whether the process conforms to the ECI's rights under the RP Act, the Constitution, and the Citizenship Act. The bench has previously expressed a prima facie view that Section 21(3) of the RP Act might empower the ECI to conduct the SIR, a position the petitioners are now strenuously contesting. The Court also indicated that Section 22 of the RP Act, which deals with the correction of entries, would require close examination.

The outcome of this case will have far-reaching implications. A ruling in favour of the petitioners could significantly curtail the ECI's perceived discretionary powers, reinforcing the supremacy of parliamentary legislation in the electoral domain. Conversely, a decision upholding the ECI's actions could grant the Commission broader authority to conduct large-scale revisions of electoral rolls, potentially reshaping the process of voter verification in India.

The matter is scheduled for its next hearing on December 2, when the Court will continue to interpret the statutory provisions before testing the propriety of the ECI's conduct.