Election Commission of India

Explanation

Statement 1 is correct. The Election Commission of India is a constitutional body established under Article 324, which vests in it the superintendence, direction, and control of the preparation of electoral rolls and the conduct of elections to Parliament, to the Legislature of every State, and of elections to the offices of President and Vice President of India. Statement 2 is incorrect because the State Election Commission and the Election Commission of India do not share concurrent or overlapping jurisdiction over municipal and panchayat elections. The 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments (Articles 243K and 243ZA respectively) created a separate and independent State Election Commission exclusively for conducting elections to Panchayats and Municipalities. The ECI has no role in these local body elections, and the State Election Commission has no role in elections to Parliament, State Legislatures, or the Presidency. Their jurisdictions are constitutionally distinct, not concurrent. This distinction is directly relevant to the present controversy: the Kozhikode Corporation Council — a municipal body — passed a resolution concerning the Chief Election Commissioner of the ECI, an authority that conducts elections entirely outside the local body's own electoral governance.

Explanation

Statement 1 is incorrect. Article 324 does not fix the number of Election Commissioners. It states that the Commission shall consist of the CEC and 'such number of other Election Commissioners, if any, as the President may from time to time fix.' The composition is thus left to presidential discretion, subject to any law made by Parliament — which is why the ECI has moved historically between one member and three. This is a critical constitutional design point: the number is not entrenched in the Constitution. Statement 2 is correct. The ECI, constituted under Article 324, is responsible for superintendence, direction, and control of elections to Parliament, State Legislatures, and the offices of President and Vice-President. The separate constitutional mechanism for Panchayat and Municipality elections — created by the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments — vests that authority in the State Election Commission under Articles 243K and 243ZA respectively. The two bodies have entirely distinct constitutional bases and jurisdictions. Statement 3 is correct. The CEC enjoys constitutional protection from removal: the procedure mirrors the impeachment of a Supreme Court judge (addressed by Parliament through a special majority). An Election Commissioner, however, does not have the same level of constitutional protection — the Constitution itself provides that an EC can be removed on the recommendation of the CEC, making the two positions structurally unequal in terms of security of tenure despite parity in salary and service conditions.

Explanation

Statement 1 is correct. Form 6 under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 is the prescribed mechanism for first-time inclusion in electoral rolls — it requires the applicant to affirm that they are applying for inclusion for the first time. This creates the legal anomaly highlighted in the petition when voters whose names were deleted during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process are required to use this very form for re-inclusion, because the declaration is factually inapplicable to previously registered voters. Statement 2 is incorrect on two counts. The Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, are not framed by the Election Commission of India under Article 324 — they are framed by the Central Government under Section 28(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, after consultation with the ECI. This is a critical conceptual distinction: the ECI is a constitutional body under Article 324, but rule-making power over electoral roll procedures vests in the Central Government (not the ECI), subject to consultation. Parliamentary scrutiny is indeed required — making the claim that there is 'no parliamentary scrutiny' doubly wrong. Statement 3 is correct. Section 28(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 requires rules made under Section 28(1) to be laid before both Houses of Parliament. Parliament retains the power to modify or annul such rules. This is the standard 'laying procedure' applicable to subordinate legislation, and it is the basis on which the petition argues that the additional declaration introduced through SIR guidelines — without following this procedure — lacks the force of law.

Explanation

Statement 1 is correct. The Election Commission of India is a constitutional body established under Article 324 of the Constitution. Because it is embedded in the Constitution itself, it can only be abolished or significantly altered through the constitutional amendment procedure — unlike statutory bodies such as the National Human Rights Commission (established under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993) or the Central Vigilance Commission (established under the CVC Act, 2003), which can be wound up by ordinary legislation. Statement 2 is correct. Under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, the ECI superintends the preparation and revision of electoral rolls for elections to the House of the People (Lok Sabha), the Council of States (Rajya Sabha), and State Legislative Assemblies and Councils. The 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments inserted Articles 243K and 243ZA respectively, which mandate separate State Election Commissions for conducting Panchayat and Municipality elections — a constitutionally distinct tier with its own rolls, entirely outside the ECI's jurisdiction. Statement 3 is incorrect. The State Election Commission has no jurisdiction whatsoever over State Legislative Assembly elections. Its mandate is confined to Panchayat elections (Article 243K) and Municipality elections (Article 243ZA). State Legislative Assembly elections are conducted exclusively under the superintendence of the Election Commission of India under Article 324. The fact that both the ECI and the State Election Commission are constitutional bodies does not create any concurrent or shared jurisdiction between them — they operate in completely separate electoral domains.

Explanation

Statement 1 is correct: The Election Commission of India is a constitutional body established under Article 324, which vests in it the superintendence, direction, and control of the preparation of electoral rolls and the conduct of elections. Because its existence and powers derive from the Constitution itself, the ECI can only be abolished or fundamentally restructured through a constitutional amendment — not by ordinary legislation. This distinguishes it from statutory bodies like the National Human Rights Commission or the Central Vigilance Commission, which can be wound up by a simple Act of Parliament. Statement 2 is also correct: The Representation of the People Act, 1950 designates Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) as the statutory custodians of electoral rolls for their assigned constituencies. They are empowered to include, exclude, or correct entries, and the Act contemplates that such decisions are exercises of statutory quasi-judicial authority by the ERO — not mechanical outputs of a centralised software system. When flagging for 'logical discrepancies' is done by a centralised platform without the ERO exercising independent judgment, it raises a foundational question about whether the statutory mandate of the ERO is being respected. The ERO must apply mind to each case; a software-driven flag list does not substitute for that statutory duty.

Explanation

Statement 1 is correct. Under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, the statutory conditions for registration as an elector are citizenship, age of at least 18 years, ordinary residence in the constituency, and absence of legal disqualification. Demographic or family-related factors — such as number of children, a parent's age at the elector's birth, or name spelling — are not part of the statutory eligibility framework and cannot lawfully form the basis for exclusion. Statement 2 is correct. The Supreme Court in Lal Babu Hussein v. Electoral Registration Officer (1995) held that prior inclusion in an electoral roll has probative value as evidence of citizenship. Accordingly, an electoral registration officer cannot summarily delete a name from the rolls that was included in a previous roll without conducting a proper inquiry — the name carries a presumption of valid registration. Statement 3 is incorrect. Under the Registration of Electors Rules, the statutory authority to make determinations about inclusion or deletion from electoral rolls vests in the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) — a designated judicial officer. Software tools such as ECINET may assist in flagging discrepancies, but they do not have statutory authority to make final determinations. When algorithmic tools rather than EROs decide who gets flagged for deletion, this bypasses the statutory process and the ERO's mandated role — the key conceptual error in Statement 3.

Explanation

Statement 1 is correct. Section 21(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, provides a dual trigger for electoral roll revision: first, mandatorily before each general election to Parliament or a State Assembly, and second, in any year by reference to a qualifying date if the Election Commission directs such a revision. This is the statutory basis for the annual Special Summary Revision. Statement 2 is correct. The defining procedural feature of the SSR is that all existing registered electors are automatically included in the draft roll — there is no requirement for them to re-establish eligibility. Electoral officials can delete deceased or duplicate voters, but must follow the statutory process, which includes issuing notices and holding hearings before any deletion. Statement 3 is incorrect. In a Special Intensive Revision (SIR), the methodology is the opposite of what is described: all existing electors are NOT automatically carried forward. Instead, every elector is required to fill an enumeration form and submit documents to establish eligibility in order to appear in the draft roll at all. The SIR is thus a fresh preparation of the roll, not a forward-carry with subsequent verification only for flagged cases. This fundamental distinction — SSR as an incremental update versus SIR as a ground-up reconstruction — is the core procedural difference between the two modes of electoral roll revision.

Explanation

Pair 1 is correctly matched: Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 explicitly authorises the Election Commission of India to conduct a special revision of the electoral roll for any constituency or part of a constituency in such manner as it thinks fit — this is the statutory basis for exercises such as the Special Intensive Revision (SIR). Pair 2 is correctly matched: Article 324 of the Constitution vests superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls for elections to Parliament, State Legislatures, and the offices of President and Vice-President in the Election Commission of India. Pair 3 is incorrectly matched: the right of persons to vote is provided under Section 62 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (which governs the actual conduct of elections), not the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (which deals with electoral rolls and delimitation of constituencies). Confusing the two Acts of 1950 and 1951 is a common error — the 1950 Act covers qualification for and preparation of electoral rolls, while the 1951 Act covers the actual conduct of elections.

Explanation

Statement 1 is correct. The Special Summary Revision (SSR) is a periodic update process in which existing electors are automatically carried forward into the new rolls — they do not need to submit additional documents. New electors can be enrolled and deletions made for those who have died or migrated. Statement 2 is incorrect. This is the key conceptual distinction between SSR and SIR. Under the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), existing electors are NOT automatically carried forward; they must actively re-register and may be required to submit supporting documents. This makes SIR a more comprehensive but also more burdensome exercise compared to SSR, not procedurally identical. Statement 3 is correct. Rules 11(c) and 22(c) of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, mandate that the Electoral Registration Officer supply two copies (one hard copy and one soft copy) of each separate part of the electoral roll to every recognised political party — free of cost — after the draft publication and after the final publication, respectively.

Explanation

Pair 1 is correct: the Election Commission of India, as a constitutional body under Article 324, ordinarily exercises disciplinary control over officers serving within it, and individual Election Commissioners also participate in reviewing the performance of such officers. The executive government is insulated from interfering in the ECI's functioning by constitutional design. Pair 2 is also correct: while the ECI controls officers once they are serving within it, the initial appointment of such officers is made by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) — the Cabinet Secretariat itself noted this distinction when it declined to take disciplinary action, emphasising that the officer in question was an 'ACC appointee.' Pair 3 is incorrect: under constitutional and institutional practice, a letter written by individual Election Commissioners in their personal capacity does not amount to a formal communication of the Commission as a whole. For a communication to carry the institutional authority of the ECI, it must reflect the Commission's collective decision — a distinction that is constitutionally significant because Article 324 vests superintendence, direction, and control in 'the Election Commission,' not in its individual members acting independently.

Explanation

Statement 1 is correct: Article 171 of the Constitution provides for the composition of State Legislative Councils and specifies that one-twelfth of the Council's members shall be elected by graduates of three years' standing residing in the state, while Article 324 vests the superintendence, direction, and control of all elections — including Council elections — in the Election Commission of India. Statement 2 is correct: under the single transferable vote (preferential voting) system used in graduates' constituency elections, a candidate wins in the first round only if they obtain more than 50% of the total valid first-preference votes (i.e., 50% plus one). If no candidate crosses this threshold, subsequent rounds of counting — redistributing votes from eliminated candidates on the basis of next preferences — are conducted. Statement 3 is incorrect: graduates' constituencies are defined geographically as territorial units covering specified districts; their boundaries are not determined by whether a university or higher-education institution exists within those districts. A constituency may span multiple districts (such as the West Graduates Constituency covering Dharwad, Haveri, Gadag, and Uttara Kannada) regardless of institutional presence.

Explanation

Pair 1 is correctly matched: Article 171 of the Constitution mandates that elections to Legislative Councils (Vidhan Parishads) be conducted through the Single Transferable Vote system, which requires voters to mark preferences (first, second, etc.) on ballot papers rather than using EVMs. Pair 2 is incorrectly matched: elections to municipal corporations and urban local bodies fall within the purview of State Election Commissions (SECs), not the Election Commission of India. SECs are constitutionally independent bodies empowered to superintend, direct, and control elections to urban and rural local bodies; they can decide whether to use EVMs or ballot papers. Pair 3 is correctly matched: Rajya Sabha elections are indeed conducted through the Single Transferable Vote system, where Members of Legislative Assemblies mark their preferences on ballot papers in an open ballot process, and a quota formula determines the winning threshold.

Explanation

Statement 1 is correct. The constitutional and statutory framework for electoral roll revision places the primary responsibility on the state machinery (enumeration officers, booth level officers) to maintain accurate rolls. The Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 provide safeguards before an existing voter's name is deleted — including notice and an opportunity to be heard — precisely because existing enrolment reflects a prior determination of eligibility. Treating passive non-response as an automatic ground for permanent deletion and forcing re-registration conflates the standard for a new applicant with that for an existing elector, which the Supreme Court has flagged as a design error. Statement 2 is incorrect. Form 6 is the statutory form for a person seeking to be enrolled as a new voter (a first-time applicant or someone applying in a fresh constituency). It is not meant for voters who are already enrolled and whose names are deleted solely because they did not respond during an enumeration drive or because they shifted addresses. Requiring such voters to use Form 6 treats them as fresh applicants and imposes a burden the statute did not contemplate for those with existing enrolment. This is precisely the 'design flaw' the Supreme Court identified — it inverts the statutory presumption in favour of an already-enrolled citizen's continued franchise. Statement 3 is correct. Article 324 of the Constitution vests superintendence, direction, and control of electoral rolls in the Election Commission of India, but this power operates within the framework of laws made by Parliament. Article 327 enables Parliament to legislate on electoral matters, and the Representation of the People Act, 1950 is the primary such legislation. The ECI's executive or administrative instructions on roll revision cannot override the procedural protections — such as deletion safeguards — that Parliament has prescribed, a principle reinforced by the Supreme Court's repeated rulings that the ECI's plenary power under Article 324 is not unchecked where Parliament has spoken.

Explanation

All three pairs are correctly matched. First, Article 324(5) of the Constitution stipulates that the Chief Election Commissioner can be removed only 'in like manner and on the like grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court.' Article 124(4) specifies those grounds as proved misbehaviour or incapacity — so pair 1 is correct. Second, once both Houses of Parliament pass the removal motion (by a majority of total membership and two-thirds of members present and voting), the President formally orders the removal. The President has no discretion at that stage, acting on Parliament's mandate — so pair 2 is correct. Third, under the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, appointments are made on the recommendation of a three-member selection committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and one Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister — so pair 3 is correct. A common misconception is that the judiciary or the President has an independent role in the appointment or removal process; in fact, both functions are routed through Parliament and/or the executive selection committee.

Explanation

Statement 1 is correct: Under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, Electoral Registration Officers are the designated statutory authorities responsible for preparing, maintaining, and revising the electoral rolls for their constituency. The special intensive revision (SIR) is one such periodic exercise conducted under this framework. Statement 2 is correct: Booth Level Officers are the grass-roots functionaries appointed under EROs to carry out physical verification of voter entries at the polling booth level, collect Forms for additions/deletions/corrections, and assist in maintaining the accuracy of rolls. Statement 3 is incorrect: The EPIC number is a unique identifier assigned to a voter at the time of initial enrolment and does not change merely because a voter's name, address, or other details are updated or corrected in the rolls. A voter may get a revised EPIC card if details change, but the EPIC number (a static identifier) remains the same — as illustrated by the Pilibhit case where voter details were allegedly altered while EPIC numbers and serial numbers remained unchanged.

Explanation

Statement 1 is correct. The statutory eligibility criteria for registration as an elector are Indian citizenship, attaining the age of 18, and ordinary residence in the constituency. The inability to produce a specific document from the prescribed list does not automatically negate eligibility — the ERO retains discretion to mark an elector eligible if field verification by the BLO is satisfactory. Statement 2 is incorrect. Under the electoral roll revision framework, an ERO who finds an elector ineligible must pass a 'speaking order' clearly recording reasons for deletion; arbitrary or unreasoned deletions are specifically prohibited. The requirement for a speaking order is a procedural safeguard against arbitrary removal from the rolls. Statement 3 is incorrect. Aadhaar is a proof of identity and address issued under the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, but it is not a proof of citizenship. The Election Commission has separately clarified that Aadhaar alone is insufficient to establish citizenship for the purposes of electoral roll revision, and EROs are directed to seek documents from the prescribed list of 11 documents — including birth certificates, passports, and educational certificates — to establish eligibility.

Explanation

All three pairs are correctly matched. The Special Summary Revision (SSR) is an annual exercise conducted by the ECI under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and ECI's superintendence under Article 324, through which eligible voters — particularly first-time voters — are enrolled without any requirement to provide proof of citizenship or to be mapped against earlier electoral rolls. The Special Intensive Revision (SIR), by contrast, is a more comprehensive and contested process under which applicants are typically required to furnish citizenship documentation and be verified against earlier rolls. Regarding Aadhaar linkage: furnishing Aadhaar in the prescribed forms (Forms 6 and 8) is voluntary, and the ECI's SSR order explicitly prohibits rejection of enrolment applications or deletion of existing entries solely on grounds of non-submission of Aadhaar details. These distinctions — between SSR and SIR procedures and the statutory protection against Aadhaar-based disenfranchisement — are core features of ECI's roll-revision framework.

Explanation

Statement 1 is correct. The ECI's constitutional mandate under Article 324 and the RPA, 1950, extends to preparing and maintaining electoral rolls — a function that necessarily involves determining voter eligibility. However, this involves only a 'limited enquiry' into citizenship. The Supreme Court has affirmed that any action taken pursuant to this enquiry is confined to electoral consequences alone — meaning deletion from the roll affects only a person's right to vote, not their broader civil or welfare rights. Statement 2 is incorrect. The EPIC (Electors' Photo Identity Card) is a derivative document — it is issued on the basis of inclusion in the electoral roll and cannot be treated as an independent or primary document of citizenship. It derives its validity from the roll, and therefore cannot be used to verify the very roll from which it is derived. It certainly does not independently establish citizenship for all government purposes. Statement 3 is incorrect. The electoral roll is compiled on the basis of voter eligibility criteria under election law, not on the basis of citizenship or residence for welfare purposes. Not every citizen is an eligible voter (e.g., those below 18, or those temporarily excluded). Tying welfare entitlements to the electoral roll conflates two distinct legal frameworks — electoral eligibility and social welfare entitlement — and is both legally and logically flawed.