Revision of electoral rules | Day 25: SC says deviation from rules cannot be unlimited
Challenge to the ECI’s Revision of Electoral Rolls in BiharJudges: Surya Kant CJI, Joymalya Bagchi J
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi continued hearing arguments from the Election Commission of India (ECI) defending the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar.
Dwivedi argued that Parliament has provided statutory powers to the ECI to determine and deviate from statutory rules in special revisions.
Rules for special revision
Dwivedi referred to Section 21(2) and 21(3) of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1950 which govern preparation and revision of electoral rolls. The simple revision of rolls under Section 21(2) should be made before every general election and bye-election. Dwivedi submitted that a special revision under Section 21(3) can be conducted at any point of time.
He argued that the ECI can deviate from the stipulated rules by referring to the particular framing of both provisions. He stated that Section 21(2) states a roll can be revised in a prescribed manner unless “otherwise directed” by the ECI. Similarly, he asked the Bench to note that a special revision can be carried out by the ECI “as it may deem fit”. The manner and the extent of the deviation will depend on the circumstances. Dwivedi submitted that Parliament has not closed the role of the ECI but preserved it keeping in view Article 324 of the Constitution, which states that the ECI has superintendence and control over the elections.
Justice Bagchi challenged Dwivedi’s reliance on Section 21(2). He stated that the provision requires the ECI to follow a prescribed procedure and referred to Rule 25 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 which states that any intensive revision should conform to Rules 4 to 23. Meanwhile, such limitations, CJI Surya Kant said, are not prescribed for special revisions carried out under Section 21(3). Dwivedi clarified that the SIR was sustainable under Article 324 read with Section 21(3) which does not prescribe any particular approach. Moreover, the discretion under the sub-clause (3) is wider.
This discretion cannot be untrammeled and unregulated, reminded Justice Bagchi. Dwivedi agreed, adding that it should be bound by constitutional limits.
The argument by the ECI is not new. It has often batted in favour of discretion when faced with petitions challenging its authority to conduct elections. Such submissions have been accepted by the Supreme Court.