What did the Supreme Court hold about the Election Commission's power to inquire into citizenship?

In Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India (2026 INSC 564), decided on 27 May 2026, the Supreme Court of India held that the Election Commission is empowered to undertake a limited inquiry into citizenship for the narrow purpose of deciding whether a person may be included in the electoral roll. The statutory hook is Section 16 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, which disqualifies a non-citizen from registration. The Court was equally clear that such a finding is not a conclusive determination of citizenship, which remains with the competent authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955, and it directed that names removed be referred to the Central Government.

Is the right to vote a fundamental right in India?

No. It is a statutory right rooted in Article 326 of the Constitution of India read with the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Article 326 confers universal adult suffrage on every citizen who is at least 18 years of age, subject to disqualification on grounds of non-residence, unsoundness of mind, crime or corrupt or illegal practice. The Supreme Court restated this position during the 2026 electoral roll litigation, and the settled authority relied on is Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India (2006) 7 SCC 1. For examinations, remember the classification: constitutional right conferred by Article 326, exercised through a statutory mechanism, not a fundamental right under Part III.

Why did the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026 fail, and what was the exact vote?

It failed because it did not obtain the special majority required by Article 368 of the Constitution of India. Of 528 members who voted in Lok Sabha on 17 April 2026, 298 voted in favour and 230 against. Two-thirds of those present and voting worked out to 352, so the Bill fell short by 54 votes. The Bill would have amended Article 81 to raise the ceiling of Lok Sabha strength to 850 seats, 815 from States and up to 35 from Union Territories, and amended Article 82 to permit delimitation without waiting for the post-2026 Census. After the defeat the Government withdrew the Delimitation Bill, 2026 and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2026 as an interconnected package.

What is the Article 142 direction on supplementary electoral rolls?

On 13 April 2026, in Mostari Banu v. Election Commission of India (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1089 of 2025 and connected petitions), a Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant invoked Article 142 of the Constitution of India to direct that wherever appellate tribunals decided voter-exclusion appeals by 21 April 2026 for Phase 1 or 27 April 2026 for Phase 2, the Election Commission must give effect to those decisions by publishing a supplementary revised electoral roll. Polling was held on 23 and 29 April 2026. The direction is examinable because it fills a procedural gap the Representation of the People Act, 1950 does not itself supply, which is the classic function of the complete-justice power.

Can a High Court interfere with Election Commission orders once the election process has begun?

Judicial review of a specific order that is said to infringe fundamental rights remains available under Article 226, but Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India bars calling an election to Parliament or a State legislature in question except by an election petition presented in the manner provided under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The Calcutta High Court applied that balance on 28 April 2026: it declined to restrain the Election Commission from ordering preventive arrests, while directing that Article 21 personal liberty be respected and that persons without prior records not be harassed. A separate Bench stayed a blanket order designating 800 persons as troublemakers.

Election Law 2026 — Supreme Court, the Election Commission and Electoral Roll Revision (Aspirant Roundup)

India's election law in 2026 turned on three fault lines: how far the Election Commission of India may go in purging electoral rolls, whether the Commission's own appointment process is constitutional, and whether Parliament can redraw the House at all. The Supreme Court of India answered the first on 27 May 2026 and left the second open. Parliament answered the third by voting no.

Why this cluster scores 15 out of 15. Election law sits in the Constitutional Law syllabus of every judiciary examination, in CLAT legal GK, and in UPSC GS-II. In 2026 it produced a reported neutral citation, an Article 142 innovation, a failed constitutional amendment with a hard vote count, and a live challenge to a 2023 statute. Setters need nothing more.

Theme 1 — The Special Intensive Revision and the Limits of the Commission's Inquiry

The Bihar judgment

On 27 May 2026 the Supreme Court of India upheld the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Bihar's electoral rolls in Association for Democratic Reforms & Ors v. Election Commission of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 640 of 2025, reported as 2026 INSC 564. The Bench was led by Chief Justice Surya Kant with Justice Joymalya Bagchi.

The Commission's SIR order was issued on 24 June 2025 — the first intensive revision of Bihar's rolls in over four decades. The scale is the data an examiner will use: of 7.9 crore registered voters, 7.24 crore submitted enrolment forms; preliminary data showed 22 lakh electors confirmed deceased, 36 lakh relocated inter-State, and 7 lakh enrolled in duplicate elsewhere.

Four holdings to carry into the hall:

SIR is statutorily valid. It conflicts with neither the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (RPA 1950) nor the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. Rule 21A of the 1960 Rules expressly authorises intensive revisions.
A limited citizenship inquiry is permitted. Section 16 of the RPA 1950 disqualifies a person who is not a citizen of India from registration. Read with Article 324, that empowers the Commission to examine questions bearing on citizenship — but only from the standpoint of roll inclusion or exclusion.
The finding is not conclusive. An electoral determination does not strip a person of citizenship. Final determination rests with the competent authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955, and the Court directed that names removed be referred to the Central Government for adjudication.
Safeguards, and a presumption. Notice, an opportunity to file documents and appeal rights were held adequate against arbitrary exclusion under Articles 14 and 21, and a presumption operates in favour of a voter already on the roll.

Exam-integrity note. Veritect's two contemporaneous news reports of this judgment differ on Bench composition — one records a two-judge Bench, the other adds Justice Vipul M. Pancholi as a third. The judgment PDF on sci.gov.in is the record that settles it. Until you have read it, write the two names you can verify and do not assert the third.

The West Bengal thread and Article 142

The West Bengal SIR ran on a parallel track. In Mostari Banu v. Election Commission of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1089 of 2025 and connected petitions, a Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi on 13 April 2026 invoked Article 142 of the Constitution of India to direct that appellate-tribunal decisions delivered by 21 April 2026 (Phase 1) or 27 April 2026 (Phase 2) be given effect through a supplementary revised electoral roll. Polling followed on 23 and 29 April 2026. On 20 April 2026 the Court called for a report from the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court on whether those tribunals were actually functioning.

Why this is a Mains paragraph, not a fact. The RPA 1950 supplies no supplementary-roll mechanism on this timeline; the Court engineered one under the complete-justice power. That is the textbook illustration of Article 142 filling a procedural vacuum — and of the counter-argument that Article 142 cannot supplant express statutory provisions.

Note also the classification restated here: the right to vote is a statutory right, not a fundamental right, resting on Article 326 and the RPA — the authority relied on being Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India (2006) 7 SCC 1.

Theme 2 — Article 324 Meets Article 21: The Calcutta High Court Orders

On 28 April 2026, the day before Phase 2 polling, benches of the Calcutta High Court delivered a cluster of orders that map neatly onto the Article 324 versus Part III question.

Preventive arrests. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen declined to restrain the Commission, but directed that Article 21 personal liberty be borne in mind: persons without prior records or proven charges of poll-related violence must not be harassed.
The "troublemakers" order. A Commission police-observer order of 21 April 2026 designating 800 persons as troublemakers was stayed as a blanket action, the stay extended to 30 June 2026.
Group motorbike riding banned 27–29 April 2026 by a Bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta, expressly without deciding the wider Article 324 question.

Phase 1 covered 152 constituencies with a turnout of 93.19 per cent; Phase 2 covered 142 constituencies.

The doctrinal payload: Article 324 powers are plenary but not immune. Article 329(b) bars questioning an election except by election petition under the RPA 1951, yet Article 226 review of a discrete order alleged to violate rights survives. That distinction — challenging the election versus challenging an order made during it — is the commonest trap in this area.

Theme 3 — Who Appoints the Election Commission?

On 15 May 2026 a Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma heard challenges to the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.

The chain to memorise:

In Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023), a five-judge Constitution Bench held that, pending legislation, the selection committee should comprise the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Justice of India.
Parliament then enacted the 2023 Act, substituting a Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister for the CJI.
The Court's 2026 objection is structural: the panel always divides 2:1 for the executive, making the Leader of the Opposition, in Justice Datta's word, "ornamental". The Bench contrasted the CBI Director panel, which retains the CJI.
It restated that free and fair elections form part of the basic structure, and that the Commission must not only be independent but appear so.
Referral to a five-judge Constitution Bench under Article 145(3) was discussed, the matter engaging Articles 14 and 324. The hearing was inconclusive and no final ruling is verified as at 18 August 2026 — do not write that the Act has been struck down.

Theme 4 — Candidate Disclosure: Chandrikaben Kishor Dafda

On 1 July 2026, in Chandrikaben Kishor Dafda v. State of Gujarat & Anr., 2026 INSC 665, a Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh held that a municipal candidate must disclose in the election affidavit property owned solely by the spouse, not merely jointly held assets. Rule 7A of the Gujarat Municipalities (Conduct of Elections) Rules extends to the assets of candidate, spouse and dependants and carves out no exception.

Two further holdings:

Section 125A of the RPA 1951 does not apply to municipal elections, which are governed by the Gujarat Municipalities Act and rules made under it. Cognizance taken solely under Section 125A was erroneous.
That error was a curable irregularity under Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; the Court remanded for fresh cognizance rather than quashing, reiterating that cognizance is taken of an offence, not of an offender.

§5.2 flag. The judgment applies the CrPC 1973, which the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) has since replaced for new proceedings. The BNSS provision corresponding to Section 465 CrPC was not verified for this digest. Cite Section 465 CrPC as the Court did, and check the BNSS mapping against the bare Act before asserting an equivalent in an answer.

Compare the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 22 May 2026, dismissing PILs that sought to compel EVM use in Punjab's municipal polls: Section 48-A of the Punjab Municipal Election Rules, 1994 introduced EVMs without deleting the ballot-paper provisions, so both modes remain lawful. Local-body elections are governed by State law and State Election Commissions under Articles 243K and 243ZA — never by the RPA.

Theme 5 — Delimitation: The Amendment That Failed

The Constitution (One Hundred and Thirty-First Amendment) Bill, 2026 (Bill No. 107 of 2026) was introduced in a Special Session convened on 16–17 April 2026, alongside the Delimitation Bill, 2026 (Bill No. 108 of 2026) and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2026. It proposed to amend Article 81 to raise the Lok Sabha ceiling to 850 seats — 815 from States and up to 35 from Union Territories — to amend Article 82 so delimitation need not await the post-2026 Census, and to insert Article 334A to activate one-third women's reservation under the Constitution (106th Amendment) Act, 2023 (Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam).

It was defeated in Lok Sabha on 17 April 2026. Of 528 members voting, 298 voted for and 230 against; 352 votes were needed; the shortfall was 54. The Delimitation Bill and the UT Laws Bill were then withdrawn as an inseparable package.

Get the majority right. Article 368 requires a majority of the total membership of the House and a majority of not less than two-thirds of members present and voting. It was the two-thirds limb that failed here. A simple-majority answer scores zero.

Background numbers worth memorising: constituencies have not been redrawn since 1973, on 1971 Census data; the freeze was imposed by the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976 and extended by the Constitution (84th Amendment) Act, 2001 to the first Census published after 2026.

A discrepancy to handle honestly. Veritect's own reports describe the expansion both as "543 to 850" and as "550 to 850". These measure different things: 543 is the present number of elected members, while 550 is the ceiling Article 81 permits. Both sentences can be true. In an answer, say the Bill proposed raising the Article 81 ceiling to 850.

Key Facts to Remember

#	Date	Development	Key Fact	Subject
1	24 Jun 2025	ECI orders Bihar SIR	First intensive revision in over four decades	Election Law
2	13 Apr 2026	Mostari Banu Article 142 order	Supplementary rolls by 21 / 27 Apr 2026	Constitutional Law
3	17 Apr 2026	131st Amendment Bill defeated	298 for, 230 against, 352 needed, 528 voting	Constitutional Law
4	23 & 29 Apr 2026	West Bengal polls	Phase 1: 152 seats, 93.19% turnout; Phase 2: 142 seats	Election Law
5	28 Apr 2026	Calcutta HC orders	800-person "troublemakers" order stayed to 30 Jun 2026	Constitutional Law
6	15 May 2026	CEC Act 2023 challenge	Panel is 2:1 executive; Article 145(3) referral discussed	Constitutional Law
7	22 May 2026	Punjab & Haryana HC	Rule 48-A retains ballot papers alongside EVMs	Election Law
8	27 May 2026	ADR v. ECI, 2026 INSC 564	ECI citizenship inquiry valid but not conclusive	Constitutional Law
9	1 Jul 2026	Chandrikaben Dafda, 2026 INSC 665	Spouse-only property must be disclosed	Election Law

Exam Angle

MCQ format: "In which case did the Supreme Court uphold the Special Intensive Revision of Bihar's electoral rolls?" — Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India, 2026 INSC 564.
MCQ format: "Which provision disqualifies a non-citizen from registration in the electoral roll?" — Section 16, Representation of the People Act, 1950. Trap option: Section 62, RPA 1951.
MCQ format: "The Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026 fell short by how many votes?" — 54 (298 of 352 required, 528 voting).
Descriptive format: "The powers of the Election Commission under Article 324 are plenary but not unreviewable. Discuss with reference to the 2026 electoral roll litigation." (Judiciary Mains, UPSC Law Optional)
Descriptive format: "Examine the use of Article 142 to create a supplementary electoral roll mechanism. Does it supplement or supplant the Representation of the People Act, 1950?" (Judiciary Mains)
Key facts to memorise: 2026 INSC 564; 2026 INSC 665; Section 16 RPA 1950; Rule 21A, Registration of Electors Rules 1960; 298–230–352–528; Article 81 ceiling 550 → 850; 815 States + 35 UTs.
Related provisions: Articles 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329; Articles 14, 21, 142, 145(3), 226, 243K, 243ZA, 368; Article 81, 82, 334A; RPA 1950 Sections 16 and 21; RPA 1951 Sections 80 and 125A.

Exam-wise Relevance

For CLAT / AILET aspirants

Learn the four-figure vote line (528 / 298 / 230 / 352) and the 850-seat proposal; both are straight legal-GK recall.
"Right to vote is not a fundamental right" is a perennial passage-based question. Article 326 is the anchor.

For judiciary exam aspirants

Articles 324 to 329 are a compact prelims block. Know precisely what Article 329(b) bars and what it leaves open.
The Anoop Baranwal to CEC Act 2023 sequence is an ideal Mains question on separation of powers and legislative override of a judicial direction.

For UPSC Law Optional and GS-II

Pair delimitation with federalism: seat redistribution, the 1976 and 2001 freezes, and the women's reservation trigger in the 106th Amendment.
Use the SIR judgment to argue the difference between electoral eligibility and legal status — a clean administrative-law jurisdiction point.

Frequently Asked Questions

What exactly did the Supreme Court permit the Election Commission to do on citizenship?

Only a limited inquiry, and only for deciding roll inclusion. Section 16 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 disqualifies a non-citizen from registration, so the Commission must be able to look at the question. The Court held the finding is not conclusive, and directed that names removed in the Bihar SIR be referred to the Central Government for adjudication under the Citizenship Act, 1955.

Does Article 329(b) block all judicial intervention during an election?

No. It bars calling the election itself in question except by an election petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. It does not bar Article 226 review of a discrete executive or Commission order said to violate fundamental rights, which is why the Calcutta High Court could stay a blanket order on 800 persons while declining to halt the poll.

Has the CEC Appointment Act, 2023 been struck down?

Not as at the date of this digest. On 15 May 2026 a Bench questioned the 2:1 structure of the selection panel and discussed a reference to a five-judge Constitution Bench under Article 145(3). The hearing was inconclusive and no final ruling is verified. Treat this as a pending challenge, not a settled outcome.

Why does the 131st Amendment Bill matter if it failed?

Because a failed constitutional amendment is a better question than a successful one. It fixes the Article 368 special-majority test in memory, it explains why the Delimitation Bill, 2026 and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2026 were withdrawn as a package, and it leaves one-third women's reservation under the 106th Amendment still tied to a delimitation exercise that has not happened.

Do the Representation of the People Acts govern municipal elections?

No. Municipal and panchayat elections are conducted by State Election Commissions under Articles 243K and 243ZA and under State law. The Supreme Court applied that distinction on 1 July 2026 when it held that Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 does not extend to a Gujarat municipal poll, which is instead governed by the Gujarat Municipalities Act and Rule 7A of the rules made under it.

Sources: Supreme Court of India — Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India, W.P.(C) No. 640 of 2025, judgment dated 27 May 2026 | Supreme Court of India — Latest Orders | Supreme Court of India — Judgments by date | Press Information Bureau — Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026 outcome | Press Information Bureau — Delimitation Bill package | Gazette of India — Bill No. 107 of 2026 and Bill No. 108 of 2026 as introduced in Lok Sabha, 16 April 2026 | Calcutta High Court | Punjab and Haryana High Court | Election Commission of India | India Code — Constitution of India and the Representation of the People Acts

source_notes: All facts in this digest were re-synthesised from Veritect's own previously published daily-news articles and the Tier 1 primary records those articles cite; no fresh web research was performed. The Bihar SIR holdings, the 24 June 2025 SIR order, and the 7.9 crore / 7.24 crore / 22 lakh / 36 lakh / 7 lakh figures come from legal-news-output/2026/May/28/2026-05-28-supreme-court-upholds-election-commission-electoral-roll-revision.md and legal-news-output/2026/May/26-to-27/2026-05-27-supreme-court-upholds-sir-electoral-roll-citizenship-verification.md; the neutral citation 2026 INSC 564, W.P.(C) No. 640 of 2025 and the judgment PDF URL are taken from the primary_source field of the latter. Those two files disagree on Bench composition (two judges versus three, the third being Justice Vipul M. Pancholi); the discrepancy is disclosed in the body rather than resolved by inference, and the sci.gov.in judgment PDF is identified as the record that settles it. The 13 April 2026 Article 142 direction, the 21 and 27 April 2026 deadlines, the 23 and 29 April 2026 poll dates, Mostari Banu W.P.(C) No. 1089 of 2025 and the Kuldip Nayar (2006) 7 SCC 1 classification of the right to vote come from legal-news-output/2026/April/20-to-21/2026-04-20-supreme-court-west-bengal-sir-calcutta-hc-report.md. The 28 April 2026 Calcutta High Court orders, the 800-person stay extended to 30 June 2026, the 27–29 April motorbike restriction and the 152 / 142 constituency and 93.19 per cent turnout figures come from legal-news-output/2026/April/28/2026-04-28-calcutta-hc-west-bengal-election-eci-preventive-arrests-motorbike-ban.md. The CEC Appointment Act, 2023 hearing, the 2:1 and "ornamental" observations, the Anoop Baranwal sequence and the Article 145(3) discussion come from legal-news-output/2026/May/15/2026-05-15-supreme-court-questions-eci-appointment-process.md; that article records the hearing as inconclusive, and no later Veritect article records a final ruling, so the outcome is stated as unverified rather than inferred. Chandrikaben Kishor Dafda (2026 INSC 665), Rule 7A, Section 125A RPA 1951 and Section 465 CrPC come from legal-news-output/2026/July/01-to-02/2026-07-01-supreme-court-municipal-election-affidavit-disclose-spouse-self-owned-property.md; the corresponding Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 provision was not verified against the bare Act and is expressly left open. The EVM and ballot-paper holding comes from legal-news-output/2026/May/22-to-23/2026-05-22-punjab-haryana-hc-ballot-paper-municipal-polls-evm-pil-dismissed.md. The 131st Amendment Bill provisions, Bill numbers 107 and 108 of 2026, the 16–17 April 2026 Special Session and the 528 / 298 / 230 / 352 vote figures come from legal-news-output/2026/April/12-to-15/2026-04-15-constitution-131st-amendment-bill-lok-sabha-850-seats.md, legal-news-output/2026/April/16/2026-04-16-delimitation-bill-2026-parliament-special-session-850-seats.md, legal-news-output/2026/April/17-to-18/2026-04-17-constitution-131st-amendment-bill-defeated-lok-sabha.md and legal-news-output/2026/April/22-to-23/2026-04-17-constitution-131st-amendment-delimitation-bill-2026-fails-lok-sabha.md; the last two carry the Gazette Bill PDF and the PIB releases cited above. The "543 to 850" versus "550 to 850" variance across those files is disclosed in the body as a difference between present elected strength and the Article 81 ceiling, not silently reconciled.

This digest is prepared for legal-examination preparation. It is not legal advice.