Supreme Court Rules Election Commission's Discretion in Special Intensive Revision is Not Unregulated
The Supreme Court clarified that while the Election Commission (EC) possesses wide discretion under Article 324 and Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, its powers are not 'untrammelled.' During a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, the EC must adhere to principles of natural justice and prescribed procedures under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. The Court emphasized that any deviations from standard procedure must respect constitutional guarantees like equality before the law (Article 14) and ensure transparency to protect the civil rights of voters, as revisions can significantly impact voter eligibility.
Key Points
- The EC's power to direct special revisions must be exercised within the framework of existing statutory rules and natural justice.
- Section 21(3) of the 1950 Act provides residuary power but does not allow the EC to bypass the procedural 'shackles' of Rule 25.
- Any deviation from prescribed norms during electoral roll revisions must be backed by fair, just, and recorded reasons.
- The Court highlighted that SIR can involve serious consequences for the civil rights of individuals already registered as voters.
Exam Facts
- Article 324 of the Indian Constitution (Superintendence of elections)
- Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950
- Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 (specifically Rule 25)
- Article 14 (Equality before law)
Read it. Retain it. Recall it.
Get spaced-repetition flashcards, daily quizzes and offline access — free on Android.