Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India
Supreme Court of India, 27 May 2026, 2 judges, 2026 INSC 564
The Court upheld the Special Intensive Revision of Bihar's electoral rolls as traceable to Section 21(3) of the RP Act read with Article 324, proportionate, and consistent with Rule 21A, while confining the Commission's citizenship enquiry to electoral consequences.
Facts
By an order dated 24.06.2025 the Election Commission of India, citing Article 324 and Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, directed a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls in every Assembly constituency of Bihar, where the last intensive revision was in 2003. The 2003 roll was treated as probative of eligibility; others had to produce prescribed documents with an Enumeration Form. Writ petitions under Article 32 challenged the order as likely to disenfranchise lakhs of voters; some petitions supported the exercise. During the hearings the Court issued interim directions, including publication of about 65 lakh names excluded from the draft roll with reasons, and treatment of Aadhaar as a twelfth document of identity. The final roll of 30.09.2025 had 7.42 crore electors against 7.89 crore earlier, and the Assembly elections were held in November 2025.
Questions before the Court
- Whether the Election Commission had power to conduct the Special Intensive Revision.
- Whether the SIR was founded on a legitimate purpose and whether the measures adopted were proportionate to that object.
- Whether the procedure adopted was contrary to the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
- Whether the Commission may scrutinise the citizenship of persons seeking inclusion or continuation in the electoral roll.
What the Court held
- Articles 324 and 327 are complementary: Article 324 cannot override an express statutory command, nor can parliamentary law extinguish it. The SIR does not conflict with the RP Act or the 1960 Rules: it rests on Section 21(3), which gives wide procedural latitude, and "any" constituency there may mean all.
- The SIR had a legitimate purpose, restoring the accuracy and integrity of the rolls, and satisfied proportionality: the measures had a rational nexus to that purpose, were not manifestly excessive, and carried sufficient safeguards against arbitrary exclusion.
- Inclusion in the electoral roll raises only a rebuttable presumption of validity and does not bar a Special Intensive Revision. Lal Babu Hussein is confined to adjudicatory proceedings.
- Deletions under the SIR did not breach Rule 21A of the 1960 Rules, since notice and hearing were preserved in substance. The documentation regime, with Aadhaar added by the Court's order, rests on intelligible criteria and is not arbitrary.
- The Commission may hold a limited enquiry into citizenship to decide eligibility for the roll. This is not a determination of citizenship: its effect is only electoral, and persons it is not satisfied about on this ground must be referred to the competent authority for adjudication, with those held to be citizens included in the roll.
Why it matters
The judgment explains how Article 324 and parliamentary law under Article 327 interact, reading Mohinder Singh Gill as recognising real constitutional power that must still be exercised consistently with statute. It reads Section 21(3) of the RP Act, 1950 as authorising a statewide special revision in a manner the Commission thinks fit, applies a proportionality analysis to an electoral roll revision, and limits the Commission's citizenship enquiry to electoral purposes, subject to adjudication under the Citizenship Act.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the impugned SIR neither stands in direct conflict with the RP Act and the 1960 Rules, nor does it detract from the constitutional imperative of free and fair elections. It is, instead, an exercise traceable to Section 21(3) of the RP Act read with Article 324 of the Constitution, undertaken to advance the very objective which Part XV of the Constitution is designed to protect.”
“We are therefore of the considered view that the Impugned SIR, as conducted, satisfies the requirements of proportionality. The measures adopted bear a rational nexus to the objective sought to be achieved, are not manifestly excessive, and are accompanied by sufficient procedural safeguards to prevent arbitrary exclusion. In view of the foregoing analysis, we hold that the Impugned exercise was founded upon a legitimate and constitutionally grounded purpose, namely, the restoration of the accuracy, completeness, and integrity of the electoral rolls.”
“We are thus of the considered view that while inclusion in the electoral roll gives rise to a presumption of validity, such presumption is rebuttable and cannot be construed as imposing a blanket embargo on the powers of the Commission to undertake a Special Intensive Revision.”
“Viewed thus, we are of the considered opinion that the Commission is empowered, in the exercise of its constitutional mandate, to undertake a limited enquiry into citizenship for the purpose of satisfying itself as to eligibility for inclusion in the electoral roll. Such an enquiry does not amount to a determination of citizenship in the strict sense, and any action taken pursuant thereto is confined to electoral consequences alone.”
Provisions interpreted
- Article 324, Constitution
- Article 327, Constitution
- Article 326, Constitution
- Section 21(3), Representation of the People Act, 1950
- Section 16, Representation of the People Act, 1950
- Rule 21A, Registration of Electors Rules, 1960
Related judgments
- Explains Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1977)“The ratio of Mohinder Singh (Supra), properly understood, is twofold. Firstly, Article 324 is not a spent or empty provision.” (page 38)
Case and bench
- Parties
- Association For Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India
- Case
- Writ Petition (Civil) No. 640 of 2025 (with connected writ petitions)
- Decided
- 27 May 2026
- Bench
- Surya Kant, CJI, Joymalya Bagchi
- Opinions
- Judgment of the Court authored by Surya Kant, CJI and signed also by Joymalya Bagchi, J.
Questions on this case
1 question in live Law Maker papers mentions this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.