Karnataka SIR | High Court Refuses To Extend Timeline For Electoral Roll Revision, Says ECI Should Decide
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (July 28) refused to interfere with the Election Commission of India's (ECI) timeline for the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, holding that the Election Commission is best placed to address procedural issues arising during the exercise. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 270]The Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S...
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (July 28) refused to interfere with the Election Commission of India's (ECI) timeline for the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, holding that the Election Commission is best placed to address procedural issues arising during the exercise. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 270]
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S Hemalekha disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by historian Dr. Ramachandra Guha, veteran activist Devanura Mahadeva, and others, which primarily sought an extension of the SIR timeline in the State.
The court termed the plea as 'premature', holding that the question of whether the timeline is sufficient falls within the 'specialised domain' of the ECI.
“…We find no reasons to proceed on the basis that ECI is not able to address any procedural issues it may encounter during conduct of SIR. 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…” the Court observed in its order.
The petitioners had prayed for extending each phase of the SIR exercise from one month to three months. They had also sought directions to the ECI to establish functional voter facilitation centres and to publish objective criteria for categorising voters to prevent arbitrary exclusion in Absent, Shifted, Dead, Duplicate and Others (ASSDO) and Logical Discrepancy Categories.
Today, Senior Advocate Vikram Huilgol, for petitioners, reiterated his argument that many voters face the risk of exclusion from the electoral rolls without any prior notice or opportunity to be heard, which would be a violation of the principles of natural justice as well as the directions of the Supreme Court.
Mr. Huilgol also drew the court's attention to the judgment in Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. v. ECI (2026 SCC OnLine 990), pointing to paragraphs 135 and 136, which mandate that Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) must scrutinise the eligibility of electors and issue show-cause notices in cases of doubt.
He contended that the timeline, which provides only one month for house-to-house enumeration (June 30 to July 29) and one month for filing objections (August 5 to September 4), is insufficient for the intensive SIR exercise. He further submitted that the 10-day training module provided to Booth Level Officers (BLOs), who are sourced from government teachers and Anganwadi workers, may not be adequate to handle the complexities of the exercise to be undertaken.
The petitioners also highlighted that many voters, particularly married women, are being disproportionately flagged under the 'logical discrepancy' category. Many voters are not being informed of the consequences of non-submission of forms, the counsel added. The counsel also raised his apprehensions about the exclusion from the final electoral roll which could also result in the denial of welfare benefits provided by the state.
Additional Advocate General Shashikiran Shetty, appearing for the State of Karnataka, informed the Court that the State government had submitted a detailed representation to the ECI on June 15, 2026, flagging these very same issues. He submitted that the timelines might not allow sufficient time to complete the exercise properly and urged the Court to direct the ECI to be more flexible.
Countering these submissions, counsel for the Election Commission of India raised three preliminary objections.
Firstly, they contended that the petition was not maintainable as similar matters concerning the SIR are pending before the Supreme Court, and that the High Courts of Sikkim and Delhi had already declined to intervene in petitions that did not challenge the validity of the SIR but the procedural issues alone
Secondly, the ECI argued that the timelines were fixed after conscious consideration and that it is a specialised body capable of addressing any procedural glitches. They submitted that if the need arises, the ECI would consider extending the timeline.
Thirdly, regarding the alleged lack of notice before deletion, the ECI clarified that notices would be issued to concerned electors after the publication of the draft electoral rolls in August, 2026. ECI assured the Court that sufficient time exists for such persons to be heard, before the final publication scheduled for October 15, 2026.
After hearing the submissions, the Bench observed that the petitioners were essentially calling upon the Court to 'fine-tune' the procedural aspects of the SIR, which is a task for the expert body which is ECI.
The Bench further noted that the State government's representation is already before the ECI and there is no ground to assume that it would not be given due consideration.
When the petitioners pressed for a direction to the ECI to publish objective criteria for the 'logical discrepancy' category, the Court remarked that the petition was premature. It noted that the petitioners were seeking relief in anticipation of a future violation of rights.
“…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 Chief Justice orally observed.
The Court also noted that the petitioners had not challenged the validity of the SIR itself, but only the timeline and procedure, which are yet to be fully implemented by ECI.
While disposing of the petition, the Court further clarified that it would be open for the petitioners to approach the Court again if the ECI fails to address the grievances or if fundamental rights are actually violated during the process.
The Bench has also recorded in its order the statement of the ECI that it would consider extending the timelines if necessary and that notices would be issued to electors with logical discrepancies after the draft roll is published.
Background
The Karnataka High Court had initially heard the matter on July 27, 2026, when it sought clarification on the petitioners' reliance on the Supreme Court's directions governing the revision exercise. The petition challenged the ECI's Order No. 23/2026-ERS (Vol. II) dated July 15, 2026, contending that the timeline prescribed for the SIR exercise is inadequate and seeking extension of each phase from one month to three months.
The petitioners also sought establishment of voter facilitation centres at every polling booth and opposed denial of welfare benefits based on exclusion from the revised electoral rolls.
Case Title: Devanura Mahadeva & Ors. v. Election Commission of India & Ors.
Case No: WP 22330/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 270