The state high court on Tuesday declined to interfere with the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) timeline for the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, saying that the poll body alone must decide whether the schedule allows enough time to complete the exercise.
A bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and justice KS Hemalekha disposed of a public interest litigation filed by historian Ramachandra Guha, writer-activist Devanura Mahadeva, and two other residents of the state, who had sought an extension of every phase of the revision exercise from one month to three months.
The court said the petition was “premature” and that there existed no reason to assume the ECI will not be able address any procedural issues that might arise.
“The question whether the timeline is sufficient to complete the task is within the specialised domain of ECI. It would not be apposite for this Court to determine this issue at this stage,” said the court.
The petitioners argued that booth level officers (BLOs), most of whom are government school teachers and Anganwadi workers, were under severe pressure. They said many BLOs had received show-cause notices for failing to meet enumeration targets, leaving them with little time to provide the careful, individual assistance required under the ECI’s instructions. They also cited a few deaths allegedly linked to SIR duty and sought an extension of the deadline to complete the exercise.
Senior advocate Vikram Huilgol, who appeared for the petitioners, argued that the compressed timeline could lead to the exclusion of eligible voters without prior notice or an opportunity to respond, violating principles of natural justice and order of the Supreme Court.
{{/usCountry}}Senior advocate Vikram Huilgol, who appeared for the petitioners, argued that the compressed timeline could lead to the exclusion of eligible voters without prior notice or an opportunity to respond, violating principles of natural justice and order of the Supreme Court.
{{/usCountry}}Huilgol said the Supreme Court had held that electoral registration officers (EROs) must scrutinise doubtful entries and issue show-cause notices before deleting names from the electoral roll. He argued that one month each for house-to-house verification and objections left little time for an exercise of this scale. He also questioned whether the 10-day training programme for BLOs adequately prepared them for the task.
The petitioners also sought directions to establish voter facilitation centres at every polling booth, publish objective criteria for classifying voters under the “Absent, Shifted, Dead, Duplicate and Others” and “Logical Discrepancy” categories, and ensure that exclusion from electoral rolls does not deprive people of welfare benefits.
Additional advocate general Shashikiran Shetty, who appeared for the state government, also told the court that the state had already flagged similar concerns in a “representation to the ECI on June 15, 2026.” He said that the existing timeline might not allow authorities to complete the exercise properly and urged the Commission to adopt a more flexible approach.
The ECI however, argued that similar challenges remain pending before the Supreme Court and that the high courts of Delhi and Sikkim had already declined to interfere in procedural aspects of the SIR exercise.
ECI also assured the Court that it will issue notices to electors with “logical discrepancies” after publication of the draft electoral rolls and would consider extending the timeline if necessary.
The bench recorded the ECI’s submissions and said it seemed that the petitioners essentially wanted the court to “fine-tune” the revision exercise, a task that belonged to the expert body conducting it.
It also noted that the state government’s representation already lay before the Commission and that there was no reason to assume that the ECI would ignore it.
“If the whole procedure results in violation of fundamental rights, we will intervene. But you are calling upon the court to fine-tune something they are supposed to do. That is not something we can do at this stage,” the court said.
The bench however, clarified that the petitioners can move the Court again if the ECI failed to address their grievances or, if the revision exercise resulted in any “actual violation of fundamental rights.”