Election Fee has widest discretion, however its deviations for SIR can’t be ‘untrammelled, unregulated’: Supreme Courtroom

The Supreme Courtroom on Wednesday (January 21, 2026) mentioned the Election Fee of India (ECI) is blessed with the “widest discretions” however its “deviations” whereas revising electoral rolls, as within the ongoing Particular Intensive Revision (SIR) 2025 train, can’t be “untrammelled or unregulated” in breach of ideas of pure justice and process prescribed below the Registration of Electors Guidelines of 1960.

“You will have the authority to deviate, however not by throwing out the Guidelines… Type 6 has six notified paperwork, your SIR has 11 paperwork. We might name upon you to reply when you can enhance or remove paperwork that are already prescribed?” Justice Joymalya Bagchi, a member of the Division Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, requested the ECI.

Additionally Learn: Supreme Courtroom listening to on SIR updates

Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, for the ECI, submitted that the SIR 2025 was “sustainable” below Article 324 (energy of superintendence, path and management of ECI over making ready electoral rolls and conducting elections) learn with Part 21(3) of the Illustration of the Folks Act, 1950.

Part 21(3) of the Act garments the ECI with a residuary energy to direct a particular revision of the electoral roll for any constituency or a part of a constituency in “such method as it might assume match”.

“However a particular revision could contain critical penalties within the civil rights of an individual who’s already a voter. So, why ought to we not anticipate you (the ECI) to have a process that’s clear,” Chief Justice Kant requested the ECI’s counsel.

Additionally Learn: Augean mess | On the SIR and the real voter

Mr. Dwivedi conceded that the ECI’s deviations from process should embrace the Constitutional assure of equality earlier than the legislation, equal safety of the legal guidelines enshrined in Article 14, Constitutional norms of transparency, and ease of voting. He, nevertheless, contended that sub-section (3) of Part 21 of the 1950 Act allowed the ECI to journey past the prescribed limits to revise electoral rolls so long as the explanations had been recorded and the process had been truthful and simply. Part 21(3) unshackled the ECI, he mentioned.

However Justice Bagchi drew Mr. Dwivedi’s consideration to clause (2) of Rule 25 of the 1960 Guidelines, which mandated that an intensive revision of the electoral roll would come with the preparation of a contemporary roll in accordance with the process prescribed below Guidelines 4 to 23.

“Rule 25 places the shackles on you… It can’t be that an authority, nevertheless excessive, will be untrammelled or unregulated…” Justice Bagchi mentioned, leaving it hanging for Mr. Dwivedi to know the courtroom’s line of thought.

Justice Bagchi requested whether or not the ECI may insist that it might not take a look at a doc prescribed in Type 6 of the 1960 Guidelines throughout verification, and solely take a look at the 11 paperwork.

The ECI had excluded the Aadhaar card from the 11 indicative paperwork prescribed in its June 24, 2025 order declaring the SIR train. The courtroom had intervened within the situation within the midst of the Bihar SIR train, and ordered Aadhaar’s inclusion.

“The style of conduct (revision of electoral rolls) should be in conformity with the ideas of pure justice. It ought to be simply and truthful,” Chief Justice Kant remarked.

Mr. Dwivedi argued that sub-section (3) of Part 21 was a step up from the previous sub-section (2) of the 1950 Act. Sub-section (2) supplied the ECI with the authority to carry a revision of the electoral roll earlier than an election.

Justice Bagchi mentioned the availability of abstract revisions within the 1950 Act was a manifestation of the Parliament’s knowledge, as there was fixed motion/migration of the inhabitants within the early years after Independence. There was plenty of flux then, he mentioned. The Parliament knew it might take some years for the inhabitants to settle.