High Court Demands Clarity on Electoral Roll Revision Controversy
The Karnataka High Court has prompted the State, the Election Commission of India (ECI), and the Karnataka State Election Commission (KSEC) to respond to a legal challenge concerning KSEC’s directive to execute a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls for specific wards under the Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA). The petitioners have raised concerns about the necessity of this parallel revision exercise when the ECI is already conducting a nationwide SIR.
Notice Issued to Respondents
Justice Suraj Govindaraj, presiding over the case, has issued notices to the concerned authorities, mandating their responses within a week. The court has scheduled the matter for further hearings on July 15.
Legal Challenge Mounted by Bengaluru Residents
The legal action has been initiated by Bengaluru residents M Vivek, M Srinath, ST Manjunatha, TR Satish, and KR Anand Murthy. They are contesting the legality of KSEC’s order dated June 19, which mandates a distinct SIR for certain wards in the GBA. According to the petition, the ECI had already initiated a nationwide SIR, encompassing Karnataka in its third phase.
Conflicting Revision Timelines
Under the ECI’s schedule, electoral rolls were frozen as of June 16, 2026, with the revision process concluding with the final publication on October 7, 2026. However, KSEC’s order, issued just three days later, froze electoral rolls as of April 18, 2026, with a condensed schedule set to end on July 31, 2026. This move, reportedly based on complaints from local political entities, has led to overlapping revision activities, causing voter confusion and administrative redundancy.
Constitutional and Legal Conflicts
The petitioners argue that the Greater Bengaluru Governance (Registration of Electors) Rules, 2025, particularly Rules 3 and 30, compel the State Election Commission to utilize the Assembly electoral rolls curated by the ECI, thereby not authorizing an independent SIR. They further contend, citing Article 243ZA of the Constitution, that while the State Election Commission oversees local electoral roll preparation, it does not have the mandate to undertake a separate revision apart from the ECI’s Assembly rolls.
More Read
The plea also challenges the interpretation of Section 35 of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, asserting that any interpretation bestowing such authority on the KSEC would contravene Articles 243ZA, 325, and 326 of the Constitution, which advocate for a unified electoral roll.
Allegations of Arbitrariness and Resource Misuse
The petition criticizes the KSEC’s order as arbitrary and hasty, leading to unnecessary public expenditure due to the redundant deployment of Booth Level Officers (BLOs) and Booth Level Agents (BLAs). Advocate Venkatesh Dalawai represented the petitioners, while Advocate General K Shashi Kiran Shetty appeared for the State. Advocate Vaishali Hegde and Advocate SR Dodwad accepted notices for the KSEC and ECI, respectively.
