Guwahati: As legal tensions rise over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, the Supreme Court on Monday (July 7, 2025) reminded petitioners that the Election Commission (EC) does not hold unchecked authority under the Constitution.
A bench led by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia referenced the 1977 M.S. Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner ruling, emphasizing that the EC cannot act as a “law unto itself.”
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
The observation came as Opposition parties, united under the INDIA bloc, challenged the SIR process in court.
They warned that the exercise could erase voting rights for millions from Bihar’s marginalized communities, effectively disenfranchising them.
Justice Dhulia, heading the Division Bench, drew attention to the earlier ruling, where Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer cautioned that although Article 324 grants the EC sweeping control over elections, those powers remain subject to fairness and legality. “Article 324 does not exalt the Election Commission into a law unto itself… Unchecked power is alien to our system,” Justice Iyer wrote in the judgment. He stressed that discretion given to high offices must be used judiciously, not arbitrarily.
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
Leaders of the INDIA bloc demanded an immediate halt to the SIR process, calling it a politically motivated move designed to manipulate electoral outcomes.
Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge accused the government of attempting to exclude nearly two crore voters from the rolls to tilt the electoral balance in its favor. Rahul Gandhi also announced he would participate in a statewide bandh on July 9 to protest the revision and new labour codes.
The 1977 case arose after the EC annulled elections in Punjab’s 13-Ferozepur constituency due to mob violence and ordered fresh polls. Candidate M.S. Gill contested the decision, claiming the EC acted arbitrarily to block his likely victory. Although the court upheld the EC’s power to cancel the election under Article 324, it warned against letting that power morph into a constitutional autocracy.
Justice Iyer had noted that the terms “superintendence, direction, and control” under Article 324 cover wide ground, potentially allowing the EC to justify controversial actions. However, he cautioned that this ambiguity must not lead to a “Frankenstein’s monster”, a figure immune to accountability.
If the EC ever abuses its powers, the court made clear it would intervene: “The judiciary will call the bluff, quash the action, and restore order to the electoral process.”
The next hearing on the matter is scheduled for July 10.