Election Commission’s Plenary Power Under Article 324 Includes Directing Special Intensive Revisions To Ensure Electoral Integrity

The Election Commission of India (ECI) issued an order on June 24, 2025 (Impugned Order), directing a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar

The ECI cited large-scale migration, urbanization, and a 20-year gap since the last intensive revision (2003) as justifications

Petitioners challenged the SIR under Article 32, alleging it would lead to arbitrary disenfranchisement and that the ECI lacked the power to conduct a statewide revision under the guise of Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People (RP) Act, 1950

During proceedings, the court directed the inclusion of Aadhaar as a 12th identity document

mandated the publication of the list of 65 lakh excluded electors to allow for claims and objections

The final roll was published on September 30, 2025, and elections were subsequently held in November 2025

1. Whether the Election Commission of India has the power to conduct the Impugned Special Intensive Revision?

2. Whether the Impugned SIR is founded on a legitimate purpose and satisfies the test of proportionality?

3. Whether the procedure adopted is contrary to the RP Act, 1950, and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960?

4. Whether the ECI is empowered to scrutinize the citizenship status of persons seeking inclusion or continuation in the electoral roll?

Article 324 of the Constitution, which vests plenary power of "superintendence, direction and control" of elections in the ECI

Article 327, noting that while Parliament may legislate on elections, such laws cannot extinguish the ECI's core constitutional functions

Mohinder Singh Gill v. CEC, establishing that Article 324 acts as a reservoir of power where the law is silent

A.C. Jose v. Sivan Pillai, which prevents the ECI from overriding express statutory mandates

Section 21(3) of the RP Act, 1950, was the primary statutory tool, granting the ECI power to direct special revisions "in such manner as it may think fit"

Regarding citizenship, Section 16 of the RP Act and the "presumption of regularity" under Section 114 of the Evidence Act were considered alongside Rule 21A of the 1960 Rules

The court determined that the ECI’s power under Section 21(3) of the RP Act is autonomous and bypasses the "prescribed manner" of ordinary revisions under Section 21(2) due to the non-obstante clause

It interpreted the word "any" in Section 21(3) as including "all" constituencies, justifying a statewide exercise

The court applied a four-pronged proportionality test, finding the SIR’s purpose (maintaining roll integrity) legitimate and its methods (house-to-house enumeration) rationally connected to that goal

It held that judicial review is limited in technical electoral matters, and the ECI's choice of an intensive revision after 22 years was a necessary response to structural inaccuracies

The court found that the SIR Guidelines incorporated the "substance" of Rule 21A by providing for notice, inquiries, and appeals before final deletion

The court distinguished Lal Babu Hussein, holding that the presumption of validity for existing voters is rebuttable and does not bar systemic verification

For citizenship, the court ruled that the ECI performs a "prima facie" administrative satisfaction of eligibility under Section 16, which is distinct from a formal adjudication of status under the Citizenship Act

The Court directed that (a) the ECI must refer cases of persons deleted on grounds of non-citizenship to the Competent Authority under the Citizenship Act within 4 weeks for formal adjudication; (b) such adjudication should preferably be completed before the next election; and (c) individuals erroneously deleted as "dead" or "shifted" may seek judicial review

The documentation regime was found valid, particularly after the court-ordered inclusion of Aadhaar as an identity document. The writ petitions were disposed of with these directions