[This is a guest post by K. Shiva. The author was one of the advocates-on-record in the Bengal SIR case.]
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (“SC”) recently delivered its Judgement in Association for Democratic Reforms and Ors. v. Election Commission of India and Ors. and WP(C) No. 640 of 2025 other connected matters (“Bihar SIR Judgement”). This forms the bedrock of all the SIR challenges particularly to the States of Bengal and Tamil Nadu, which is also pending. Out of several, one of the moot questions was whether the Election Commission can trace its power to Article 324 of the Constitution to conduct the Special Intensive Revision (“SIR”), when the parliamentary legislation such as Representation of Peoples’ Act, 1950 (“RP Act, 1950”), and Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 (“1960 Rules”), is already in place. While analyzing this issue, the Court, in paragraphs 16 to 55, legitimizes the SIR exercise by tracing the power of ECI to conduct such revision on the basis of Section 21(3) of the RP Act, 1950 de hors the 1960 Rules. Simply put, the SC states that the SIR carried out in Bihar falls within the purview of Section 21(3) of the RP Act, 1950 and hence the same is not required to be in conformity with the 1960 Rules. In furtherance, SC framed the first issue as to whether the ECI has power to conduct the SIR in the first place, without adhering to the 1960 Rules, merely because Section 21(3) starts with a non-obstante clause.
The issue that is addressed here is not the correctness of the overall exercise but whether the Hon’ble Court was right in stating that SIR will not be bound by the procedures of 1960 Rules which contains the important procedures specifically mentioned Part II of the rules (Rules 4 to 23). These rules, inter alia, contain procedures regarding preparation of roll in part, publication of roll in draft, period of lodging claims and objections, inquiry into those claims, final publication of rolls and appeals against the rolls. However, at paragraph 36 and 37 of the Judgement, SC held that Rule 25 (which lays down the contours for revision of rolls and make them amenable to Rule 4 to 23), will not be applicable to Section 21(3). According to the Hon’ble Court, the term “prescribed manner” is only mentioned in Section 21(2), and the said prescribed manner mentioned in the Statute is answered by the legislature by making Rule 25. It is in this backdrop, Hon’ble SC held that the Section 21(3) is not amenable to procedures in Rule 25 and in turn to Rules 4 to 23.
The solecism interpretation
However, the same requires a little deeper analysis. Primarily, in terms of the Statute RP Act, 1950, the term “Special Intensive Revision”, is not defined anywhere. The term “Intensive Revision” finds its roots to the Rule 25 of 1960 Rules. The said rules classify the revision as (i) intensively, (ii) summarily, (iii) partly intensively and (iv) partly summarily. However, the said Rule restrict such meaning of the Revision only confined to Section 21(2) of the RP Act 1950.
The Apex Court, in paragraph 32 and 33 of the Bihar SIR Judgement interprets or rather diversifies Section 21 of the RP Act, 1950 into three different types of SIR enumerated under three sub-sections. SC states that Section 21(1) contemplates mere preparation of electoral roll in prescribed manner with reference to qualifying date. Further as per the Judgement, Section 21(2), (which under rules classifies revisions in four different types), embodies the ordinary scheme of revision i.e., periodical revision of rolls.
The core of the controversy lies in the interpretation or expansion of meaning given by the SC to Section 21(3). According to the Judgement, since sub-section 3 begins with a non-obstante clause, the same is placed on higher footing to tackle exigencies and empowers the ECI to direct a Special Revision of the electoral roll at any time by recording reasons. Hon’ble SC states that it is an enabling provision, and therefore holds that the powers conferred under Section 21(3) are akin to the residual inherent power of ECI to specially revise any rolls in manner it deems fit, at any point of time, for any or all Constituencies, without adhering to the procedures and safeguards laid down in the 1960 Rules. The judgement in paragraph 34 also notes that the change of Statute vide 1956 amendment while replacing existing Section 25 with Section 21 and its sub-sections, widened the powers vested with ECI by making sub-section 3. Therefore, for this reason, the Hon’ble Court states that the 1960 Rules are not applicable to the revisions such as SIR under Section 21(3) of the RP Act, 1950.
The legitimization of the exempting the application of 1960 Rules to the contours of Section 21(3) is that the word “prescribed manner” is mentioned only in Sub-Section (2) of the Act and Sub-Section (3) starts with a non-obstante clause and further holds “ in manner it deems fit” hence the prescribed manner will not come into play. In furtherance, the Hon’ble Court assigns meaning of prescribed manner alone to the 1960 Rules. In other words, the Court states held that the whole of 1960 Rules is a creature under Section 21(2) of the Act alone and hence is only confined to operation of Section 21(2) and not other Sections.
The issues
The issue with the said interpretation of SC is that now a constitutional body is vested with unfettered powers vide a Statute, which is open to wide misuse and is highly arbitrary for the reasons discussed below. From the RP Act, 1950 and 1960 Rules it is amply clear as explained above that there exists nothing like a Special Intensive Revision. It could either be one of the four in terms of Section 21(2) or it could be a Special Revision in terms of Section 21(3). Now since the Section 21(3) does not contemplate the nature of revision and the very categorization of revision is only found in the Section 21(2), it stands to reason that Section 21(3), with respect to the meaning of “revision,” is subject to the Section 21(2). Further, the non-obstante clause in Section 21(3) has no relation whatsoever to the application of 1960 Rules.
The fundamental issue in the interpretation given by SC to non-application of 1960 Rules to Section 21(3) is that the rules are not solely framed under Section 21(2), but under the RP Act, 1950. A plain reading of sub-rule (1) of Rule 25 lists out the four types of revision as discussed above. The disjoint sub-rule (2) of the said Rule provides a general application of Rules 4 to 23 to all revisions undertaken under the Statute, which would by default include the Special Intensive Revision as well. However, the narrow reading of the Hon’ble SC has now given an unfettered ride to the ECI to conduct the SIR without any adherence to the Rules framed by the very Statute under which such revision is undertaken. In paragraph no. 37 of the Judgement the Hon’ble Court states that absence of delegated legislation will not vitiate the express power conferred upon the Statute. However, the Hon’ble Court did not notice that the express powers of Section 21(3) itself are enforceable only vide the delegated legislation i.e., the 1960 Rules, which is the procedural law for implementing the Revision of rolls, (Rule 4 to 23 and 25) without which, the ECI would be forced to function in highly disorganized way.
In the case of ICICI Bank Ltd. v. SIDCO Leathers Ltd., (2006) 10 SCC 452, the Hon’ble SC held that a non obstante clause must be given effect to, to the extent Parliament intended and not beyond the same. In Ramdev Food Products (P) Ltd. v. Arvindbhai Rambhai Patel, (2006) 8 SCC 726the Hon’ble Court held that while the non obstante nature of a provision may be of wide amplitude, the interpretative process thereof must be kept confined to the legislative policy.
A reading of Section 21 would make clear that the intent of Parliament is not to curtail the necessary Special Revision to timelines mentioned in Sub-Section (2) or make it strictly bound by the prescribed manner. However, by no stretch of imagination it could be inferred that the Parliament intended to give the 1960 Rules a go-by for the Special Intensive Revision. The dangerous interpretation would take away even the basic safeguards provided to the deleted voters under the Special Revision to even file an appeal (Rule 23). It is owing to such interpretation, that the Hon’ble SC was burdened with heavy administrative task of appointing judicial officers from West Bengal, Jharkhand and Orissa to dispose of the objections to deletion of rolls in the case of Motari Banu v. The Election Commission of India and Ors., and other connected matter, WP No. 1089 of 2026 and connected matters (“Bengal SIR matters”). In the same matter, the Hon’ble SC had to take an unprecedented move to even constitute Appellate Tribunals to challenge the orders passed by the Judicial officers vide order dated 10.03.2026. At one end of spectrum, the Hon’ble Court unsettled the mechanism provided under the 1960 Rules by the broad interpretation of Section 21(3), whereas on the side, the SC has burdened itself, the State Judiciary of three states with huge administrative task of overseeing the SIR process. An interpretational problem which was created was attempted to be solved at the cost of Judicial time and resources.
Now, whenever a Special Revision is proposed, since the same would not be subjected to the 1960 Rules based on the ruling in Bihar SIR Judgement, the Constitutional Hon’ble SC or the High Courts would be burdened with a the task akin to that of an Executing Court to safeguard and tackle the issues that would come up, which would end up in endless litigations.
