Introduction
The integrity of India’s democratic process rests upon the principle that each eligible citizen should exercise only one vote in any given election. This principle is not a matter of mere political theory but a constitutional requirement reinforced by statutory prohibitions under the Representation of the People Act, 1950. Yet, instances of a single person being registered as a voter in more than one constituency do occur, sometimes due to administrative oversight and at other times due to deliberate misrepresentation. The crucial legal question that arises is — who bears the ultimate responsibility for such discrepancies, and what remedies are available to address them? The constitutional scheme under Articles 324 and 326, read with specific provisions of the RPA 1950, assigns clearly defined roles and obligations to the Election Commission of India, the individual voter, and, to a limited extent, the government machinery. The Supreme Court’s authoritative pronouncement in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, AIR 1978 SC 851, provides the guiding interpretation on the scope of the Election Commission’s powers and responsibilities in maintaining the purity of the electoral process.
The Constitutional Framework – Articles 324 and 326
Article 326 of the Constitution mandates elections to the House of the People and to the Legislative Assemblies of the States on the basis of adult suffrage, ensuring that every citizen of India aged eighteen years or above, and not otherwise disqualified under the Constitution or law, is entitled to be registered as a voter in the constituency where they are ordinarily resident. Complementing this is Article 324, which vests in the Election Commission of India the superintendence, direction and control over the preparation of electoral rolls and the conduct of elections to Parliament and the State Legislatures. The Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill (AIR 1978 SC 851 at p. 860) held that Article 324 is a plenary provision which is meant to cover the entire field relating to elections and which operates in areas not provided for by statute, so long as the action taken is to ensure free and fair elections. This means that the Commission’s constitutional authority is overarching and prevails over any executive power once the electoral process has commenced, thereby making it the primary constitutional guardian of electoral roll integrity, including the prevention of multiple constituency registrations.
Statutory Prohibitions under the Representation of the People Act, 1950
The Representation of the People Act, 1950 gives concrete effect to the principle of “One Person, One Vote” through explicit prohibitions and procedural safeguards. Section 17 of the Act declares that no person shall be entitled to be registered in the electoral roll for more than one constituency, thereby preventing multiple constituency voting. Section 18 reinforces this by prohibiting the same person’s name from being entered more than once in the electoral roll of any one constituency. Section 19 restricts entitlement to registration to persons who are ordinarily resident in a constituency, thereby linking the registration to a specific geographical and residential qualification. These provisions, read together, not only make multiple registrations illegal but also create a clear statutory structure that supports the constitutional guarantee under Article 326. The law does not merely rely on the voter’s honesty but also obligates electoral authorities to verify eligibility and prevent duplication at the time of registration.
Verification, Correction, and Appeals
In order to maintain the purity of the rolls and enforce these prohibitions, Section 22 of the RPA 1950 empowers the Electoral Registration Officer to correct entries, including deletion of any duplicate registration, upon being satisfied that such an entry is erroneous or in contravention of the Act. This can be done either on an application made to the ERO or on the officer’s own motion. Section 24 provides an appellate remedy to any person aggrieved by the decision of the Electoral Registration Officer, allowing them to approach the Chief Electoral Officer of the State for relief. Further, Section 31 prescribes a penal consequence for anyone who makes a false declaration or applies for registration in more than one constituency, with punishment extending to imprisonment of up to one year, or fine, or both. This statutory scheme demonstrates that while the legal liability for providing false information rests on the voter, the administrative and supervisory duty to ensure accuracy and remove discrepancies lies with the Election Commission through its appointed officers.
Judicial Clarification – Mohinder Singh Gill Case
The Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill (AIR 1978 SC 851 at pp. 867–868) unequivocally recognised that the Election Commission’s powers under Article 324 extend to all aspects of the electoral process and are intended to secure the purity and fairness of elections. The Court made it clear that these powers are not subject to prior legislative authorisation where the statute is silent, provided the Commission’s actions are aimed at ensuring free and fair elections. Importantly, the Court also held that all officers engaged in the preparation and maintenance of electoral rolls, whether permanent employees of the Commission or on deputation from the government, operate under the exclusive superintendence, direction and control of the Election Commission during the period of their electoral duties. This means that responsibility for any systemic lapse in preventing multiple constituency registrations, once the election machinery is set in motion, is constitutionally vested in the Election Commission and not in the executive government.
Why the Government Cannot Be Blamed
It is a common but legally unfounded perception that the executive government can be held responsible for errors or irregularities in the electoral roll, including multiple constituency registrations. In reality, once the electoral process is in motion, the officers handling the rolls act under the control of the Election Commission and not under any department of the executive government, as reaffirmed in Mohinder Singh Gill (AIR 1978 SC 851 at p. 869). The role of the government is confined to providing the necessary logistical and administrative assistance to the Commission, such as manpower and infrastructure. The authority to scrutinise, verify, add, delete, or correct entries in the electoral roll rests entirely with the Election Commission through its Electoral Registration Officers. As such, the constitutional accountability for the accuracy of the rolls lies with the Election Commission, and the statutory liability for furnishing false particulars lies with the voter under the provisions of the RPA 1950.
Remedy for Grievances Regarding Multiple Registrations
Where a person has a grievance that an individual is registered as a voter in more than one constituency, the appropriate legal remedy lies within the procedure provided under the RPA 1950. The complainant may file an objection before the Electoral Registration Officer of the constituency in question under Section 22, requesting deletion of the duplicate entry. The ERO is required to conduct an inquiry and, if satisfied, make the necessary correction in the roll. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the decision of the ERO, an appeal lies under Section 24 to the Chief Electoral Officer of the State. In cases where deliberate and fraudulent registration is suspected, the complainant can initiate criminal proceedings under Section 31 for making a false declaration, which can be tried by a Magistrate having jurisdiction. These remedies ensure that grievances are addressed in a manner consistent with both constitutional safeguards and statutory procedure, without the need to invoke executive intervention.
Conclusion
The legal framework governing voter registration in India makes it clear that the principle of “One Person, One Vote” is safeguarded by a combination of constitutional authority, statutory prohibition, and judicial oversight. The voter carries the legal duty to comply with the requirements of the RPA 1950, particularly Sections 17, 18 and 19. The Election Commission, under Article 324 and as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill, bears the constitutional responsibility to maintain electoral rolls that are free from duplication. The government’s role is strictly supportive, providing manpower and infrastructure but exercising no control over the content of the rolls once the election process begins. Grievances over multiple constituency registrations must be resolved through the statutory channels of objection, appeal, and prosecution, ensuring that the democratic process remains credible and that public confidence in elections is preserved.
