1. Introduction
In Association For Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India,
the Supreme Court examined the legality of the Election Commission of India’s order dated
24.06.2025 directing a Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar.
The petitioners argued that the exercise could disenfranchise lakhs of voters, was arbitrary,
and exceeded the Commission’s powers. The Election Commission defended the exercise as necessary
to ensure accurate and lawful electoral rolls before the Bihar Legislative Assembly elections.
The case raised foundational questions about electoral democracy: who may be included in the
electoral roll, how far the Election Commission may go in verifying voter eligibility, and whether
citizenship can be scrutinised during electoral roll revision.
3. Analysis
3.1 Precedents Cited
The judgment is heavily anchored in earlier constitutional election law precedents. The Court used
these authorities to clarify the relationship between Article 324, parliamentary legislation, and
the Election Commission’s discretion.
-
Sadiq Ali v. Election Commission of India, (1972) 4 SCC 664:
The Court relied on this case to reject the argument that the Election Commission acts merely as
Parliament’s delegate. Article 327 is subject to Article 324, and therefore the Commission acts as
an independent constitutional authority.
-
All Party Hill Leaders' Conference, Shillong v. Captain W.A. Sangma, (1977) 4 SCC 161:
This precedent supported the wide amplitude of Article 324. The Court reaffirmed that the Commission
may issue broad regulatory directions to secure free and fair elections.
-
Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405:
This was central to the judgment. The Court read it as establishing a balanced principle:
Article 324 is a reservoir of power where the law is silent, but the Commission cannot act contrary
to express statutory provisions. The present SIR was upheld because it supplemented, rather than
violated, the statutory framework.
-
A.C. Jose v. Sivan Pillai, (1984) 2 SCC 656:
The petitioners relied on this case to argue that the Commission cannot override statutory rules.
The Court distinguished it, holding that unlike in A.C. Jose, the present case involved
a specific statutory authorisation under Section 21(3).
-
Kanhiya Lal Omar v. R.K. Trivedi, (1985) 4 SCC 628:
This case supported a liberal reading of Article 324. The Court used it to reaffirm that the word
“elections” includes the entire electoral process, not merely polling day.
-
Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar & Ors, (2000) 8 SCC 216 and
Union Of India v. Association For Democratic Reforms & Anr., (2002) 5 SCC 294:
These cases reinforced the proposition that Article 324 covers all powers necessary for smooth,
fair and effective elections.
-
In Re: Special Reference No. 1 of 2002 (Gujarat Assembly Election Matter), (2002) 8 SCC 237:
The Court relied on this Constitution Bench authority to explain the constitutional equilibrium:
Article 324 powers are subject to valid law, but parliamentary law cannot emasculate the Commission’s
core constitutional function.
-
Promoters & Builders Assn. of Pune v. Pune Municipal Corpn., (2007) 6 SCC 143 and
Ghulam Qadir v. Special Tribunal, (2002) 1 SCC 33:
These cases were used to interpret expressions such as “as it may think fit” or “as it may deem fit”
as conferring broad procedural discretion.
-
Prabhakaran v. P. Jayarajan, (2005) 1 SCC 754 and
Shri Balaganesan Metals v. M.N. Shanmugham Chetty:
These authorities helped the Court interpret the word “any”. The Court held that depending on context,
“any” may mean one, many, or all. Thus, Section 21(3) could authorise a statewide SIR.
-
Lal Babu Hussein v. Electoral Registration Officer, (1995) 3 SCC 100:
The petitioners relied on this case to argue that existing electors enjoy a presumption of citizenship.
The Court accepted that there is a presumption of regularity, but held that it is rebuttable and does
not bar a systemic verification exercise.
-
Inderjit Barua v. Election Commission of India, (1985) 4 SCC 722:
This case was cited for the probative value of electoral roll entries. The Court did not reject that
proposition, but held that probative value does not create an irrebuttable shield against revision.
-
Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India (2023) 3 SCC 1:
The Court used this precedent to show judicial restraint in reviewing complex administrative and
policy choices made by specialised bodies. It refused to substitute its own view for that of the
Election Commission on the method of revision.
-
In Re: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, (2024) 16 SCC 105 and
Rajbala v. State of Haryana:
These cases were relevant to the nature of the right to vote. The Court reiterated that the right to
vote is a constitutional right, but one regulated by statutory conditions.
3.2 Legal Reasoning
A. Article 324 and Section 21(3) operate together
The Court rejected two extreme positions. It held that Article 324 is not extinguished merely because
Parliament has legislated under Article 327. At the same time, Article 324 cannot be used to violate
an express statutory mandate.
The correct approach is harmonious construction: Article 324 supplies the constitutional mandate, while
Section 21(3) supplies the statutory mechanism for special revision.
B. Section 21(3) gives wide discretion
The Court deconstructed Section 21(3) and found four important elements:
- “Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2)”: this frees special revision from the ordinary revision procedure.
- “At any time”: the Commission may act whenever circumstances require.
- “For reasons to be recorded”: the power is reviewable and cannot be exercised casually.
- “In such manner as it may think fit”: the Commission has wide procedural discretion.
C. Statewide revision is permissible
The petitioners argued that Section 21(3) permits revision only of a particular constituency or part of
a constituency. The Court disagreed. It held that where reasons such as migration, duplication and
demographic change affect the entire State, the Commission may revise all constituencies together.
D. Proportionality test satisfied
The Court applied proportionality in four stages:
- The purpose was legitimate: ensuring accurate, complete and lawful electoral rolls.
- The measures had a rational nexus: house-to-house enumeration and document verification directly addressed inaccuracies.
- The measures were not excessive: a statewide exercise was justified by the systemic nature of the problem.
- The balance was fair: safeguards such as notices, claims, objections, appeals, publication of excluded names and legal assistance mitigated hardship.
E. Existing voters have a rebuttable presumption, not immunity
Inclusion in an electoral roll gives rise to a presumption that the official act was regularly performed.
But the Court clarified that this is only an evidentiary presumption. It does not prevent the Commission
from conducting a later intensive verification.
F. Rule 21A safeguards were substantially followed
Rule 21A requires notice and opportunity before deletion. The Court held that the SIR framework preserved
these safeguards through enumeration, draft roll publication, claims and objections, enquiry in doubtful
cases, speaking orders and statutory appeals.
G. Documentation regime upheld, with Aadhaar as identity proof
The Court upheld the Commission’s choice of documents. It accepted that Aadhaar is not proof of citizenship,
but because Section 23(4) of the RP Act recognises Aadhaar for identity, the Court directed that it be
treated as a 12th identity document. EPIC was not accepted as independent proof because it is itself based
on inclusion in the electoral roll.
H. Limited citizenship scrutiny allowed
The Court drew a crucial distinction between:
- Administrative satisfaction for electoral enrolment, which the Commission may undertake; and
- Final adjudication of citizenship, which belongs to the competent authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955.
Therefore, the Commission may examine citizenship-related material only to decide electoral eligibility.
If it concludes that a person may not be a citizen, it must refer the case to the competent authority.
6. Conclusion
The judgment is a major restatement of the Election Commission’s powers over electoral rolls. It upholds
the Commission’s authority to conduct a statewide Special Intensive Revision under Article 324 and
Section 21(3), while insisting that procedural fairness must be preserved.
Its most significant contribution is the balance it strikes: electoral roll purity is essential to democracy,
but voter exclusion cannot occur arbitrarily. The Commission may verify eligibility, including citizenship
for limited electoral purposes, but final citizenship decisions remain with the competent statutory authority.