The Supreme Court, on Monday, refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that alleged serious irregularities in the electoral roll of the Bengaluru Central parliamentary constituency. The apex court advised the petitioner to instead approach the Election Commission of India (ECI) to seek redressal.
The PIL was filed in the context of allegations of ‘vote theft’ leveled by Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, concerning the electoral process in Bengaluru. The petitioner had called for an investigation into the alleged manipulation of the voter list and raised questions about the role of the Election Commission. A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice J.B. Pardiwala (Note: The input mentions Justice Joymalya Bagchi, but official sources confirm it was Justice J.B. Pardiwala) heard the matter but dismissed it after a brief hearing. The petitioner’s counsel argued that a memorandum had already been submitted to the Election Commission regarding the irregularities in the voter list, but no effective action or response had been received. However, the Supreme Court declined to hear the PIL, stating that the petitioner could avail of the remedies available under the law.
The petition had invoked constitutional rights to ensure free and fair elections. It contended that the voter list for the Bengaluru Central parliamentary constituency contained serious irregularities, which constituted a clear violation of constitutional provisions. The petitioner specifically claimed that the names of individual voters were found registered in multiple constituencies, thereby jeopardizing the sanctity of the democratic process. Arguing that the Supreme Court’s immediate intervention was necessary to uphold the sanctity of the Constitution and protect democracy, the petitioner had demanded the formation of an independent committee, headed by a retired Supreme Court judge, to conduct a fair and transparent probe into the matter.
The ‘Vote Chori’ Allegations: A Recap
The allegations of voter list manipulation in Bengaluru were brought into public focus by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi in August. During a press conference, he raised serious concerns about alleged irregularities in the Mahadevapura assembly segment of the Bengaluru Central Lok Sabha constituency. He claimed that the segment witnessed various malpractices, including duplicate voters, fake addresses, and the misuse of Form-6 (a form for inclusion of name in the electoral roll). Gandhi asserted that these irregularities resulted in a disadvantage for the Congress party during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. However, the Election Commission of India had subsequently rejected all the allegations made by Rahul Gandhi.
The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the PIL on the Bengaluru voter irregularity allegations is not a judgment on the merits of the claims, but a reinforcement of institutional roles. The apex court has effectively directed the petitioner to first seek redressal from the primary constitutional authority on such matters—the Election Commission of India (ECI).
This outcome highlights a fundamental principle: the judiciary typically intervenes in electoral matters only after all other administrative and statutory avenues have been exhausted. The ECI’s prior rejection of the same allegations, combined with the Supreme Court’s stance, indicates that the official mechanisms have, for now, found the claims insufficient to warrant a high-level judicial probe. The matter rests with the Election Commission, and unless new, legally admissible evidence is presented that challenges the ECI’s decision, no further judicial action is anticipated.Â
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Q1: What was the Supreme Court’s main reason for rejecting the PIL on Bengaluru voter irregularities?
The Supreme Court refused to hear the PIL, stating that the petitioner should first exhaust the remedies available under the law. The bench explicitly advised the petitioner to approach the Election Commission of India, which is the primary statutory body responsible for addressing such electoral grievances.
Q2: What specific irregularities were mentioned in the petition?
The petition alleged “serious irregularities” in the voter list of the Bengaluru Central parliamentary constituency. The primary claim was that the names of individual voters were found to be registered in multiple constituencies. The petition argued that this constituted a violation of constitutional provisions meant to ensure free and fair elections.
Q3: How did the Election Commission of India respond to these allegations?
 The Election Commission of India had already rejected all the allegations of voter list manipulation raised by Rahul Gandhi. The petitioner’s counsel noted in court that a memorandum submitted to the ECI had not elicited any effective action or response, indicating that the ECI had not found merit in the claims.