Karnataka High Court declines to entertain petition seeking extension of SIR timeline

Published 28 July 2026 · india

Observing that the question whether timelines for the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls are sufficient is a matter within the specialised domain of

Observing that the question whether timelines for the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls are sufficient is a matter within the specialised domain of the Election Commission of India (ECI), the High Court of Karnataka on Tuesday declined to entertain a PIL petition, which had sought direction from the court for extension of timelines. Specialised domain “The ECI is tasked with the conduct of SIR and it is a specialised body and we find no reasons to proceed on the basis that the ECI would not be able to address procedural issues. The question whether the timelines are sufficient to complete the task is within the specialised domain of the ECI. It would not be apposite for this court to determine this issue at this stage,” the court observed in its order.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha passed the order while disposing of the petition filed by writer Devanur Mahadeva, historian Ramachandra Guha, Major General S.G. Vombatkere (retd.), and former Vice-Chancellor of Karnataka State Akkamahadevi Women’s University Sabiha Bhoomigouda. Noticing that the State government had submitted a representation to the ECI highlighting the same concerns, the Bench said that there was no reason to presume it would not be given due consideration while terming the petition as “premature.” Earlier, appearing for the petitioners, senior advocate Vikram Huilgol argued that there is no bar on the High Court to consider the issues raised, as the petitioners had raised concerns about procedural aspect and not challenged the validity of SIR.

BLOs not trained The petitioners sought direction to ECI to extend timelines for SIR while claiming that Booth Level Officers (BLOs) are not adequately trained and are overburdened. Also, the petitioners wanted a direction to the ECI for operationalising voter facilitation centres and clarification of definition of the word “others” in the “absentee, shifted, dead, duplicate and others” (ASDDO) classification. It was urged in the petition that this classification should not be applied without prior notice to the elector and a reasonable opportunity to respond before the name is excluded from the draft electoral rolls. Appearing for the ECI, advocate S.R Dodwad contended that petition is not maintainable as the Supreme Court is hearing petitions related to similar issues and moreover the High Courts of Sikkim and Delhi have declined to entertain similar petitions.