On the day the Election Commission of India (ECI) launched the second phase of the nationwide special intensive review (SIR) of electoral rolls, senior Congress MP Manish Tewari said the exercise would be a “constitutional offence” as the electoral body has no mandate to conduct an all-India intensive review of this nature.
Speaking to The Hindu, the former Information and Broadcasting Minister said that the electoral body can only carry out such an exercise in certain regions and constituencies and that too if there is empirical evidence of its need.
“It is important to understand the constitutional and legal scheme with respect to the EC’s powers. Article 324 of the Constitution empowers the EC to exercise supervision, management and control of elections. However, this is challenged by Article 327, which empowers Parliament to make laws on all matters relating to elections to the Lok Sabha or state legislatures,” Mr Tewari said. “This includes the preparation of electoral rolls, the delimitation of constituencies and any other measures necessary for the proper constitution of these bodies. Thus, the powers of the EC under Article 324 are not unlimited and must be exercised in conjunction with Article 327,” he added.
The Congressman explained that the primary law dealing with the conduct of elections is the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and “under Section 21 of that Act, the proposal of the Commission must be tested”.
SIR involves a house-to-house survey, after which electoral rolls are again prepared. Summary revisions and annual revisions correct anomalies and add new voters and strike out those who have migrated or died.
Section 21(2) of the RPA Act requires the electoral rolls for each constituency to be revised before each general or by-election, unless the Electoral Commission decides otherwise for “reasons of record”. It also envisages an annual revision at the behest of the EC.
“Then comes Section 21(3) of the RP Act, 1950, which empowers the EC to carry out a special revision in any constituency or part thereof for reasons to be recorded in writing. The word is ‘any’ and not ‘every’ constituency. This provision is a surgical scalpel designed to solve the problem in extrapolation lists in a particular country or part of it. It cannot become a license for the whole or part of it. to prepare a new list of voters for the entire country,” said Mr. Tewari.
Then comes the Electoral Registration Rules 1960, which, through Rule 25, adds a procedural structure that allows such a review to be done “intensively or summarily or partly intensively and partly summarily”, he said.
Yet it is the aforementioned Section 21(3) of the RPA that the poll panel is now seeking to rely on in its proposed statewide SIR, Mr. Tewari said, arguing that the clause was designed as an emergency provision for localized contingencies, not a substitute for a regular statewide review process.
The leader said that Clause 21 (3) said such an exercise would be carried out by the EC for “reasons to be recorded” and the requirement was not a procedural formality but a substantive constitutional safeguard against “arbitrariness”.
The provision also uses the phrase “any constituency or part of a constituency” – a deliberate legislative choice and therefore cannot be used to implement an all-India SIR. “The rules nowhere contemplate the creation of electoral rolls de novo,” he said.
The former minister asked that if the EC claims that the previous electoral rolls were so flawed that it ordered a large-scale revision, where is the empirical evidence. “They should be publicly available,” he said.
Mr. Tewari said that EC is not the only participant in democracy, every individual, especially the voter, is an equal participant.
Excerpts from the interview
Does the ECI have a mandate to conduct nationwide SIRs of this nature?
An electoral body can only carry out such an exercise in certain regions and constituencies, even if it is empirically proven to be necessary.
It is important to understand the constitutional and legal framework with respect to the ECI’s powers. Article 324 of the constitution empowers the ECI to supervise, manage and control elections. However, this is precluded by Article 327, which empowers Parliament to make laws relating to all matters relating to elections to either the Lok Sabha or the State Legislature. This includes the preparation of electoral lists, the delimitation of constituencies and any other measures necessary for the proper formation of these bodies.
Therefore, ECI’s powers under Article 324 are not unlimited and must be exercised in conjunction with Article 327.
How can this be argued legally?
The primary law dealing with the conduct of elections is the Representation of the People Act 1950 and “the proposal of the commission must be scrutinized under section 21 of that Act”.
Section 21(2) of the RPA requires the electoral rolls for each constituency to be revised before each general or by-poll, unless the ECI decides otherwise for “reasons of record”. It also envisages an annual review at the direction of the ECI.
Furthermore, there is Section 21(3), which empowers the Electoral Commission to carry out a special review for reasons recorded in writing in “any” electoral district or part thereof. This power cannot be extrapolated to every constituency and used as a basis for conducting a national SIR. This is a constitutional and legal travesty.
Then comes the Electoral Registration Rules 1960 which, through Rule 25, adds procedural structure – allowing such a review to be carried out “intensively or summarily or partly intensively and partly summarily”.
Yet it is Section 21(3) of the RPA that the ECI is now seeking to rely on in its proposed statewide SIR, Mr. Tewari said, arguing that the provision was designed as an emergency provision for localized contingencies, not as a substitute for a regular statewide review process.
Clause 21(3) says that such performance will be carried out by the EKI for “reasons to be recorded”, and this requirement is not a procedural formality but a substantive constitutional guarantee against “arbitrariness”.
The provision also uses the phrase “any constituency or part of a constituency” – a deliberate legislative choice and therefore cannot be used to implement an all-India SIR.
The rules nowhere contemplate the creation of voter lists de novo.
ECI says this was needed because there was widespread migration, duplication and deaths that went unrecorded.
If the ECI claims that the previous electoral rolls were flawed enough to order a massive overhaul, then where is the empirical evidence.
“They should be publicly available.”
The ECI is not the only participant in democracy. Every individual is an equal participant, especially voters.
However, the Supreme Court did not stop the process.
The ÚS had not yet issued a final decision, so the ECI had to wait for the final verdict.
Published – 04 Nov 2025 21:28 IST
