Here’s why: The ECI used 2002 as the base year for updating Sikkim’s electoral rolls, arguing it’s been the standard nationwide. A local NGO wanted 1993 instead, claiming 2002 data doesn’t reflect Sikkim’s real demographics. The Court didn’t buy it; not because they ignored Sikkim’s unique situation, but because changing rules mid-process could throw the entire system into chaos. Justice Bagchi pointed out: border states like Sikkim always face migration and demographic shifts; but uniform rules matter more than local exceptions. The bigger lesson? When electoral systems are in motion, tweaking the foundation mid-revision risks undermining credibility; nationwide. So while Sikkim’s concerns are valid, the Court chose system stability over regional adjustment. A quiet but powerful message: consistency beats customization in elections.