Kapil Sibal hits out at CEC Gyanesh Kumar over voter notice, says issue may reach Supreme Court
A notice was issued to a registered voter questioning the details of their voter registration, as part of the ongoing electoral roll verification process being carried out across states.
The notice-and-response mechanism forms part of the Election Commission of India's (ECI) periodic and special revisions of electoral rolls, under which voters may be asked to confirm or re-verify their registration particulars.
The matter has drawn attention to the possibility of judicial review of electoral roll deletions, with observers noting that such disputes could be tested before the Supreme Court.
The episode comes against the backdrop of the ECI's nationwide Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise, which the Supreme Court examined and upheld as being within the Commission's constitutional and statutory mandate in a ruling earlier in 2026.
Article 324 and the Election Commission's constitutional mandate
Article 324 of the Constitution vests "the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections" to Parliament, state legislatures, and the offices of President and Vice-President in the Election Commission of India. The Supreme Court has held that where existing law is silent or insufficient on an election-related matter, the ECI possesses residuary powers under Article 324 to act as necessary to ensure free and fair elections — a doctrine most notably applied in cases involving model code enforcement and roll revisions.
Key Details
- Article 324(1): ECI's superintendence extends specifically to "preparation of electoral rolls," not just conduct of polls.
- The ECI is a permanent constitutional body; its composition (Chief Election Commissioner plus other Election Commissioners) is governed by Article 324(2)-(5) and, since 2023, the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.
- Residuary/plenary power doctrine: recognised in cases such as Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978), where the Supreme Court held Article 324 confers wide powers to fill gaps in election law.
The authority to issue verification notices and revise electoral rolls flows directly from this Article 324 mandate, making any legal challenge to such notices ultimately a question of how far the ECI's constitutional powers extend.
The Representation of the People Act, 1950 and electoral roll revision
The Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1950 lays down the statutory framework for preparing and revising electoral rolls, distinct from the RPA, 1951, which governs the conduct of elections and disputes. Section 21 of the RPA, 1950 empowers the ECI to conduct both periodic revisions (before elections) and "special revisions" of the electoral rolls at any time it considers necessary, for reasons to be recorded — without needing prior clearance from any other authority. Sections 22 and 23 provide for correction of entries, inclusion of names, and deletion of names following due process, including verification and the opportunity to be heard.
Key Details
- RPA, 1950, Section 21(3): empowers "special revision" of electoral rolls in any constituency or part thereof.
- RPA, 1950, Sections 22-23: govern correction of entries, transposition, and deletion/inclusion of names in electoral rolls, generally requiring notice and a hearing before deletion.
- The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) launched by the ECI in 2026 used house-to-house enumeration, pre-filled forms, and verification of legacy data, and was upheld by the Supreme Court in May 2026 as consistent with the RPA, 1950 and within the ECI's constitutional mandate.
A notice questioning a voter's registration details is a standard instrument under Sections 22-23 of the RPA, 1950 — part of the due-process safeguard that must precede any deletion from the rolls, and its use has become more visible during the SIR exercise.
Judicial review of electoral roll decisions
Electoral roll disputes, including deletions, can be challenged through India's constitutional remedies. Article 226 allows a High Court to be approached via writ petition, while Article 32 permits direct Supreme Court intervention for enforcement of fundamental rights, including the right to vote-related due process. Courts have generally been cautious about interfering with the ECI's electoral roll functions mid-process but have intervened to ensure procedural fairness, such as requiring adequate notice and reasoned deletion.
Key Details
- Article 32: "Right to Constitutional Remedies," allows direct Supreme Court approach for fundamental rights enforcement.
- Article 226: empowers High Courts to issue writs, with wider grounds than Article 32.
- In its May 2026 ruling on the SIR exercise, the Supreme Court (bench headed by the Chief Justice) upheld the ECI's power to conduct the revision while flagging the need for procedural safeguards against wrongful disenfranchisement, particularly for marginalised groups lacking legacy documentation.
Any escalation of a voter-notice dispute to the Supreme Court would follow this established pattern of judicial review testing whether the ECI followed due process under Sections 22-23 of the RPA, 1950, rather than questioning its underlying Article 324 authority itself.
- Article 324 vests ECI with superintendence over preparation of electoral rolls and conduct of elections.
- Representation of the People Act, 1950, Section 21(3): basis for "special revision" of electoral rolls.
- Representation of the People Act, 1950, Sections 22-23: govern correction, inclusion, and deletion of entries in electoral rolls.
- Supreme Court upheld the legality of the ECI's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in a ruling delivered on 27 May 2026.
- Constitutional remedies against roll disputes: Article 32 (Supreme Court) and Article 226 (High Courts).