The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday, through Justice Suraj Govindaraj, issued notices to the State Election Commission (SEC), the Election Commission of India (ECI) and the state government after a petition challenged the SEC’s order for a parallel Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in wards falling under the Mahadevapura Assembly constituency of the Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA).

Background

On June 19, the SEC directed a fresh SIR in 23 wards of Bengaluru North City Corporation and one ward (Kasavanahalli) of Bengaluru South City Corporation, citing prima facie irregularities in the Mahadevapura electorate. This move came just three days after the ECI had frozen the electoral rolls of all assembly constituencies on June 16 as part of its nationwide SIR exercise.

SEC’s Action

The SEC’s decision was triggered by a complaint lodged on May 21 by Mansoor Ali Khan, Secretary of the All India Congress Committee (AICC). Khan alleged that the Mahadevapura voter list contained about 13,000 duplicate entries, 40,000 fictitious or invalid addresses, 4,000 unverifiable photographs and 33,000 instances of misuse of Form‑6. The petitioners, all registered voters in the affected wards, argue that the SEC’s independent SIR creates a direct conflict with the ECI’s centralized review.

High Court’s Order

Justice Govindaraj ordered that the SEC, ECI and the Karnataka state government be served notice, emphasizing that the SEC lacks jurisdiction to conduct an autonomous SIR. Under the Indian Constitution, the SEC’s role is limited to adopting the Assembly electoral rolls prepared by the ECI, not revising them independently. The petitioners contend that interpreting the GBA Act to grant the SEC such power would violate Articles 325 and 326, which guarantee a single, unified electoral roll for each constituency.

Constitutional and Practical Concerns

Running parallel revisions not only wastes public funds but also sows confusion among voters. Two competing rolls could lead to duplicate or missing entries, undermining the credibility of the electoral process. Moreover, the SEC’s unilateral decision, without consulting the ECI, threatens the principle of a unified electoral roll, a cornerstone of India’s democratic framework.

Implications for Future Elections

If the court restrains the SEC’s parallel SIR, the upcoming assembly elections will proceed with a single, validated list, preserving transparency and legal certainty. Conversely, should the dual‑roll system persist, it could trigger challenges to election results, prompt further judicial scrutiny, and possibly spur legislative amendments to clarify the division of responsibilities between the SEC and ECI.

Ultimately, the case underscores the delicate balance between state and central election bodies, the need for coordination, and the constitutional mandate for a single voter roll that upholds the integrity of India’s democratic process.