4 min readBengaluruJul 28, 2026 03:53 PM IST
Observing that the Election Commission of India (ECI) is a constitutional authority and courts cannot intervene to fine-tune operational schedules, the Karnataka High Court Tuesday refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation seeking a direction to the poll body to extend the timeline for the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process in the state.
The petition had sought a direction to the Election Commission to extend the timeline for each phase of the SIR process in Karnataka from one month to three months.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K S Hemalekha disposed of the plea filed jointly by writer Devanuru Mahadeva, historian Ramachandra Guha, retired Major General S G Vombatkere, and former vice chancellor Sabhiha Bhoomigowda.
In Karnataka, house-to-house visits by booth-level officers (BLOs) are scheduled to end on August 8. The draft electoral rolls will be published on August 17, following which claims and objections can be filed until September 16. Claims and objections will be disposed of between August 17 and October 15, with the final electoral rolls scheduled for publication on October 19.
Court declares petition premature
In its order, the court said, “The Election Commission is tasked with the conduct of (the) SIR and it is a specialised body and we find no basis to proceed that (the) ECI would not be able to address the procedural issues which it may encounter during the conduct of SIR. The question whether (the) timeline is sufficient is a matter that is within the specialised domain of (the) ECI. It would not be haphazard for this court to determine the issue at this stage.”
The bench further noted that the state government had already submitted a representation to the ECI highlighting the same concerns, adding that there was no reason to presume it would not be given due consideration. Pointing out that the ECI informed the court of similar matters pending before the Supreme Court, the bench held that the petition was premature and disposed of the matter.
Petitioners’ concerns over feasibility
Senior advocate Vikram Huilgol, appearing for the petitioners, said the plea was not challenging the conduct of the SIR itself, but was confined to the feasibility of the procedural timelines.
Story continues below this ad
He said the exercise covers beyond urban areas and reaches every corner of the state, including illiterate voters. The people responsible for conducting the SIR process will be Anganwadi workers and teachers. However, a 10-day training module may not be sufficient for them to complete this task effectively, he argued.
“There may be many discrepancies that may result in names of citizens not mentioned in draft electoral rolls; there is no procedure nor any objective criteria for giving them a notice prior to not mapping them to earlier electoral rolls,” Huilgol said.
The plea had also sought directions to establish functional voter facilitation centres at every polling booth across the state.
Election Commission, government submissions
Advocate General Shashikiran Shetty, representing the state government, informed the court that the state had already sent a representation to the ECI regarding the timeline concerns, though a response was awaited.
Story continues below this ad
The counsel for the ECI opposed the PIL on maintainability grounds, noting that related petitions are currently pending before the Supreme Court. The commission assured the court that it is closely monitoring the process and will adjust schedules if any operational hurdles arise. The ECI further clarified that requisite notices to unmapped voters would be issued after the publication of the draft roll.
The High Court also clarified that it could not pass orders regarding allegations raised by the petitioners concerning statements attributed to Chief Minister D K Shivakumar, specifically, claims that citizens might lose access to state welfare guarantee schemes if omitted from the revised electoral rolls.
