Association For Democratic Reforms & Ors. v. Election Commission of India & Ors.

Background & Facts

The Election Commission of India issued an order dated 24.06.2025 directing a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in every Assembly constituency of the State of Bihar. The last intensive revision in Bihar was conducted in 2003, and over two decades, the rolls were carried forward through summary revisions. The Commission cited rapid urbanisation, large-scale migration (intra-State and inter-State), non-reporting of deaths, and duplication of entries as reasons for the SIR. The Impugned Order treated the 2003 electoral roll as probative evidence of eligibility, required persons not listed in the 2003 roll to produce prescribed government documents, and mandated submission of Enumeration Forms by 25.07.2025, failing which names would be excluded from the draft roll. The draft roll published on 01.08.2025 excluded nearly 65 lakh electors who had not submitted forms. Several writ petitions were filed under Article 32 challenging the SIR on grounds of lack of power, arbitrariness, violation of Rule 21A, and disproportionate exclusion. This Court issued interim directions including inclusion of Aadhaar as the 12th document, publication of excluded lists, and deployment of legal aid. The final electoral roll published on 30.09.2025 contained 7.42 crore electors (down from 7.89 crore), and elections were conducted in November 2025.

Statutes Involved

• Article 324, Constitution of India — Vests the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to Parliament and State Legislatures in the Election Commission.
• Article 325, Constitution of India — Provides that there shall be one general electoral roll for every territorial constituency for election to either House of Parliament or to the House or either House of the Legislature of a State, and no person shall be ineligible for inclusion on grounds of religion, race, caste or sex.
• Article 326, Constitution of India — Provides that elections to the House of the People and to the Legislative Assembly of every State shall be on the basis of adult suffrage, subject to constitutionally permissible disqualifications.
• Article 327, Constitution of India — Empowers Parliament to make provision by law with respect to all matters relating to or in connection with elections, including preparation of electoral rolls, delimitation of constituencies and all other matters necessary for securing the due constitution of such House or Houses, subject to the provisions of the Constitution.
• Section 16, Representation of the People Act, 1950 — Prescribes disqualifications for registration in an electoral roll, including that a person who is not a citizen of India shall be disqualified for registration.
• Section 19, Representation of the People Act, 1950 — Provides that every person who is not disqualified under Section 16 and is ordinarily resident in a constituency shall be entitled to be registered in the electoral roll for that constituency.
• Section 21(3), Representation of the People Act, 1950 — Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), the Election Commission may at any time, for reasons to be recorded, direct a special revision of the electoral roll for any constituency or part of a constituency in such manner as it may think fit, with the proviso that the existing roll continues in force until completion of the special revision.
• Section 24, Representation of the People Act, 1950 — Provides for appeals against decisions of Electoral Registration Officers, including under clause (a) to the District Magistrate and under clause (b) to the Chief Electoral Officer.
• Rule 21A, Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 — Prescribes the procedure for removal of names from the electoral roll, requiring the Electoral Registration Officer to prepare a list of names proposed for deletion, publish it, invite claims and objections, and give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the concerned elector.
• Rule 25, Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 — Provides that every roll revised under Section 21(2) of the RP Act shall be revised either intensively, summarily or partly both; intensive revision requires the roll to be prepared afresh with Rules 4 to 23 applying.
• Section 114(e), Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Provides that the court may presume that official acts have been regularly performed.
• Section 9(2), Citizenship Act, 1955 — Deals with termination of citizenship upon voluntary acquisition of the citizenship of another country.
• Section 23(4), Representation of the People Act, 1950 — Expressly includes Aadhaar among documents which may be produced for the limited purpose of establishing identity of a person.

Full Analysis

Cases Distinguished

• A.C. Jose v. Sivan Pillai (1984) 2 SCC 656 — Distinguished on facts: that case arose from introduction of voting machines in a field where the Act and Rules positively contemplated ballot papers, and the Commission's notification directly collided with the governing scheme. The present case has a clear statutory authorization under Section 21(3) to depart from the ordinary prescribed regime.
• Lal Babu Hussein v. Electoral Registration Officer (1995) 3 SCC 100 — Distinguished on the ground that the observations regarding presumption of validity were rendered in the context of adjudicatory proceedings where an objection was raised against an individual entry. The ratio does not extend to a systemic, inquisitorial verification exercise undertaken by the Commission in discharge of its constitutional mandate.

Cases Cited

• Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978) 1 SCC 405 — Cited for the proposition that Article 324 operates in areas left unoccupied by legislation, and that the Commission must act in conformity with law, but where law is silent, Article 324 is a reservoir of power.
• Sadiq Ali v. Election Commission of India (1972) 4 SCC 664 — Cited for the proposition that the Commission does not act as a delegate of Parliament while exercising power in the electoral field; it acts in its own right as the constitutional repository of electoral superintendence.
• All Party Hill Leaders' Conference, Shillong v. Captain W.A. Sangma (1977) 4 SCC 161 — Cited for the proposition that Article 324 has been understood as a source of wide power enabling the Commission to issue directions, including directions of a legislative or subordinate legislative character, where necessary to effectuate free and fair elections.
• Kanhiya Lal Omar v. R.K. Trivedi (1985) 4 SCC 628 — Cited for the proposition that the word 'elections' in Article 324 is used in a wide sense to include the entire process of election, and that the Commission's power under Article 324 is plenary and can encompass provisions not strictly traceable to the parent Act or Rules.
• Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. (2002) 5 SCC 294 — Cited for the proposition that the jurisdiction of the Election Commission is wide enough to include all powers necessary for smooth conduct of elections, and that where law is silent, Article 324 is a reservoir of power.
• In Re: Special Reference No. 1 of 2002 (Gujarat Assembly Election Matter) (2002) 8 SCC 237 — Cited for the proposition that Parliament's power under Article 327 is subject to the provisions of the Constitution, and that the general power of superintendence under Article 324 is subject to law made by Parliament, provided the law does not encroach upon the plenary powers of the Commission.
• Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India (2023) 3 SCC 1 — Cited for the proposition that the determination of appropriate measures to address complex and systemic concerns lies primarily within the domain of specialised bodies possessing expertise, and that the Court will not substitute its own assessment for that of the competent authority unless the measure is manifestly arbitrary.
• Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar & Ors (2000) 8 SCC 216 — Cited for the proposition that the jurisdiction of the Commission under Article 324 is of sufficient amplitude to encompass all powers necessary for the smooth conduct of elections.
• Prabhakaran v. P. Jayarajan (2005) 1 SCC 754 — Cited for the proposition that the word 'any' may mean 'all', 'every', 'some', or 'one or many out of several' depending on the context and subject-matter of the statute.
• In Re: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955 (2024) 16 SCC 105 — Cited for the proposition that the right to vote under Article 326 is not merely a statutory right but a constitutional right, subject to certain limitations.
• Promoters & Builders Assn. of Pune v. Pune Municipal Corpn. (2007) 6 SCC 143 — Cited for the proposition that phrases such as 'as it may deem fit' or 'as it thinks fit' are of broad import and must be accorded their natural meaning.

Courtroom Arguments