Karnataka High Court Issues Notice on Parallel Electoral Roll Revision Plea

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday issued notice to the State Election Commission after hearing a writ petition filed by five residents of the Mahadevapura Assembly Constituency. The petition challenges the SEC’s order dated 19 June 2026 directing a fresh Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls for twenty‑four wards falling under the Greater Bengaluru Authority that correspond to the Mahadevapura Assembly Constituency (174). The bench comprising Justice Suraj Govindaraj directed the State of Karnataka, the State Election Commission and the Election Commission of India to file their objections to the plea. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on 15 July 2026.

The petitioners contend that the SEC’s order runs parallel to the ongoing Special Intensive Revision Phase III being conducted by the Election Commission of India across sixteen states and three union territories, including Karnataka. They point out that the Election Commission had frozen the assembly constituency rolls in Karnataka on 16 June 2026 as a standard preparatory step for its nationwide revision. In contrast, the State Election Commission allegedly froze the same electoral rolls for the specified twenty‑four wards on 19 June 2026 with effect from an earlier date, namely 18 April 2026.

According to the petition, the SEC proposes to complete its revision within five weeks and publish the revised rolls on 31 July 2026, whereas the Election Commission of India intends to continue its Phase III operations until 7 October 2026. The petitioners argue that conducting two separate revisions for the same territorial area creates the risk of duplicate entries, voter confusion and unnecessary expenditure of public funds.

The writ petition invokes Articles 325 and 326 of the Constitution, which mandate a single, unified electoral roll for every territorial constituency. The petitioners submit that the State Election Commission’s authority under Article 243ZA is confined to the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls for municipalities. In this limited role, the SEC may only adopt the rolls prepared by the legislative assembly and cannot undertake an independent, parallel revision.

Further reliance is placed on Rules 3 and 30 of the Greater Bengaluru Governance (Registration of Electors) Rules, 2025, which expressly require that electoral rolls for wards under the Greater Bengaluru Authority be prepared by adopting the state legislative assembly rolls. The petitioners assert that the SEC’s June 19 order contravenes these statutory provisions by directing a separate intensive revision.

The petition also references a representation made by the Leader of Opposition, Chalavadi Narayanaswamy, to the Chief Electoral Officer on 25 June 2026. In that representation, he urged the Election Commission of India to intervene and halt the SEC’s parallel process, warning that simultaneous revisions could lead to massive public confusion and waste of resources.

Seeking relief, the petitioners have prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash the SEC’s impugned order, a writ of mandamus declaring that the State Election Commission is bound to prepare municipal electoral rolls only by adopting the rolls prepared by the Election Commission of India, and an interim order staying the implementation of the parallel Special Intensive Revision schedule. The court’s notice requires the respondents to file their objections before the next date of hearing.