A fresh legal challenge has been presented before the Karnataka High Court, questioning the Karnataka State Election Commission’s (KSEC) decision to conduct a separate Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls for certain wards within the Greater Bengaluru Authority. This move comes even as the Election Commission of India (ECI) is engaged in a comprehensive nationwide revision. The petitioners, Bengaluru residents M Vivek, M Srinath, ST Manjunatha, TR Satish, and KR Anand Murthy, have named the KSEC, the State Government, and the ECI as respondents in the case.
The petition emphasizes that the ECI has initiated a nationwide SIR of electoral rolls, placing Karnataka in Phase III of this process. According to the petition, the electoral rolls for assembly constituencies were frozen as of June 16, with the revision scheduled to conclude with the final publication on October 7. However, just days later, on June 19, the KSEC issued an order to conduct a separate and concurrent SIR for the Greater Bengaluru Authority wards.
The petitioners argue that the KSEC independently froze the electoral rolls as of April 18, 2026, and adopted a compressed timeline, culminating on July 31, 2026, citing vague complaints from local political parties as justification. This action has resulted in two simultaneous revisions for the same electorate, each with distinct freeze dates, qualifying periods, and overlapping operations, potentially causing voter confusion and redundant efforts.
The petition further contends that under the Greater Bengaluru Governance (Registration of Electors) Rules, 2025—specifically Rules 3 and 30—the State Election Commission is mandated to utilize the Assembly electoral rolls prepared by the ECI, without conducting an independent SIR. Additionally, the petition asserts that Article 243ZA of the Constitution empowers the State Election Commission to oversee the preparation of electoral rolls for local body elections by adopting the assembly rolls. It argues that this article does not authorize the Commission to carry out an independent revision.
The petition challenges Section 35 of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, claiming that its interpretation as granting such powers would be ultra vires to Articles 243ZA, 325, and 326 of the Constitution, which anticipate a single, unified electoral roll. Moreover, the petition deems the order arbitrary, lacking reasoning, hastily issued, and an unnecessary public expenditure, due to the redundant deployment of Booth Level Officers (BLOs) and Booth Level Agents (BLAs).
More Read
The case is yet to be scheduled for a hearing, and the petition was filed through advocate Venkatesh Dalawai.
