Revision of Electoral Rolls | Day 26: Petitions should be dismissed at a “special cost,” argues ECI

No challenge from deleted voters

Continuing from where he left off yesterday, Dwivedi stated that it is incorrect to argue that Rule 25 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 apply to special revisions. Rule 25 deals with the modification or revision of rolls. It states any intensive, summary or partly intensive or partly summary revision should be in line with Rules 4 to 23. The distinction, according to him, was that the revision was a “special” one stipulated under Section 21(3), and not the kind that was prescribed under Section 21(2).

He then submitted that the petitioners had misinterpreted Section 21(3) to suggest that special revisions can only be carried out in one constituency or in a “clutch” of constituencies. The petitioners had argued that the phrase “any constituency” does not mean all constituencies. Dwivedi countered that there cannot be a metric to define a “clutch of constituencies”. Moreover, it cannot be said that a clutch means few and not all. He submitted precedents where “any” is held to mean “all”, referring to Article 304(a) where “any tax” was interpreted to cover all kinds of tax.

Dwivedi then contended that the SIR was carried out with recorded reasons, which the petitioners claim was not provided. The reasons were rapid urbanisation, frequent migration, large scale duplications of entries and verification to identify that citizens were included on the rolls. He remarked that political parties who challenge the SIR also complain about duplications in the roll. Justice Bagchi asked whether the ECI was “second guessing” the revision since the statement of objects did not mention “illegal migration”, and therefore, demanded proof of citizenship. Dwivedi responded that the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003 had substantially changed the norm of citizenship, prior to which people only provided self-declarations. However, the SIR was an opportunity to examine the exercise through the new norms since they were never formally applied. He pointed out that individuals connected to the 2003 SIR rolls were not subject to a rigid process. Moreover, those who did not have a link had provided the 11 documents required by the SIR. 

Earlier, petitioners had argued that the documents sought by the ECI were not easily available. Justice Baghchi added that the lack of any appeal from the 65 lakh voters benefited the ECI’s case. 

Dwivedi then referred to petitioners’ submission that no due process was followed in the SIR exercise. He vehemently denied the existence of due process under Indian law, stating that it is a concept from the United States and quipped that the US itself did not follow due process with regard to Venezuela. He referred to the majority opinion in K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017) which held that due process was not a part of Indian law. He further argued that the Constituent Assembly had intentionally excluded “due process” under Article 21. 

Petitions undermine the ECI and its achievements

Chief Justice Surya Kant asked whether directions passed by the Court in the Bihar SIR matter were applied to other states. In August 2025 the Court had directed the Commission to release details of deleted voters. Further, the Court had pushed the ECI to include the Aadhar card as a 12th document. 

Dwivedi answered in the affirmative, adding that there has been no grievance from the other states. He stated that it was not correct of the petitioners to argue that the ECI was “sailing away” from the rules. Recalling the time when petitioner Yogendra Yadav had brought two individuals from Bihar who were deleted from the roll on grounds of death, he stated that even those persons were ultimately included in the list. 

Dwivedi challenged the way the petitioners had invoked Article 32. He pointed out that the first writ petition was filed within six days of the SIR being announced in Bihar. He argued that the petitioners had relied on newspapers editorials in their petitions. He pointedly referred to Yogendra Yadav’s editorial which was later annexed in the petition filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR). Doubling down on his attack, he pointed out that the Court in the past had chastised ADR for approaching the Court when challenging the ECI’s decision—referring to the VVPAT judgement. 

Dwiviedi stated that petitions should be dismissed at a special cost, and concluded his arguments. 

Arguments will continue on Wednesday, 28 January 2026.