New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe alleged large-scale voter list manipulation in the Bengaluru Central constituency during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. The allegations were first raised by Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi in August this year.

A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi observed that the petitioner should pursue the matter before the Election Commission of India (ECI), which is the competent authority to deal with such electoral irregularities.

Court directs petitioner to approach ECI

At the outset of the hearing, the bench made it clear that it was “not inclined to entertain” the plea. When the petitioner’s counsel informed the bench that a representation had already been submitted to the ECI but no action had been taken so far, the court still declined to intervene.

“We have heard the petitioner’s counsel. We are not inclined to entertain the petition, which is purportedly filed in public interest. The petitioner may pursue before ECI, if so advised,” the court noted in its order.

The bench also rejected the petitioner’s request to set a time limit for the Election Commission to act on the complaint, saying it would not be appropriate for the Court to issue such directions.

Petition sought SIT probe and electoral reforms

The petition, filed by Rohit Pandey, sought an SIT probe into the alleged voter list discrepancies as well as binding guidelines for transparency and accountability in electoral roll management.

It requested the Supreme Court to restrain the ECI from conducting any further revision or finalisation of electoral rolls until an independent audit was completed. The petitioner also urged the Court to direct the ECI to publish electoral rolls in machine-readable and OCR-compliant formats to facilitate public verification and audits.

The plea emphasised the need for stronger institutional mechanisms to detect and prevent duplicate, fictitious, or invalid voter entries, arguing that existing verification processes were insufficient to prevent manipulation.

Allegations of voter list manipulation

Citing Rahul Gandhi’s press conference on August 7, the petitioner claimed that the Congress leader had highlighted “systemic attempts” to manipulate voter lists in Mahadevapura, one of the assembly segments under the Bengaluru Central Lok Sabha constituency.

Pandey claimed to have independently verified the allegations and found 40,009 invalid voters and 10,452 duplicate entries in the constituency. The petition alleged that some individuals possessed multiple EPIC (Electors Photo Identity Card) numbers across different states, which violates the rule of unique voter identification.

The plea also mentioned several instances where multiple voters shared the same address or father’s name, and cited an example where 80 voters in one booth listed the same small house as their address. Such anomalies, the petitioner contended, raise serious doubts about the authenticity of the electoral rolls and the possibility of bogus voting.

Constitutional arguments and public interest

The petitioner argued that manipulation of voter rolls undermines the democratic principle of “one person, one vote” and violates Articles 325 and 326 of the Constitution, which ensure equality and universal adult suffrage.

It further claimed that such tampering infringes Articles 14 and 21, which protect equality before the law and the right to meaningful participation in governance.

“Such manipulation strikes at the very root of the constitutional guarantee of free and fair elections and dilutes the value of lawful votes,” the petition stated.

Supreme Court’s reasoning and outcome

However, the Supreme Court maintained that it was not the appropriate forum to investigate alleged irregularities in electoral rolls, especially when the ECI has primary jurisdiction in such matters.

The bench disposed of the petition with liberty to the petitioner to continue pursuing the issue before the Election Commission. The Court refrained from issuing any specific directions to the poll body, emphasising the principle of institutional competence and separation of powers.

The decision effectively leaves the responsibility of probing the allegations to the ECI, which has the constitutional mandate under Article 324 to supervise and conduct free and fair elections in India.

The takeaway

The Supreme Court’s refusal to intervene underscores its consistent approach of allowing the Election Commission to handle electoral grievances in the first instance. While concerns about voter list discrepancies persist, the Court’s order reinforces the need for citizens and political actors to utilise existing institutional channels before seeking judicial intervention.