Supreme Court reserves verdict in petitions challenging SIR across States

The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its verdict in a batch of petitions challenging the Election Commission of India (ECI)'s decision to hold a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls across different States.

Last year, the ECI had directed an SIR in Bihar. Multiple petitions, including those filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and the National Federation for Indian Women (NFIW), challenged the legality of the process. Despite that, the ECI proceeded with the SIR in Bihar since the top court did not impose any stay on the same.

Subsequently, the ECI on October 27, 2025, extended the SIR to other States and Union Territories, including West Bengal, Kerala and Tamil Nadu. This led to multiple petitions challenging the same.

The Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi today concluded hearing arguments on the petitions.

"Thank you everyone. Judgment reserved," CJI Kant remarked.

On January 19, the Court issued various directions to the ECI in respect of the ongoing SIR in West Bengal. Today, the Court issued similar directions to ECI in respect of State of Tamil Nadu.

During the hearing of the case, the Court recently questioned whether the power of the ECI to conduct the SIR of electoral rolls can be considered untrammelled and beyond judicial review.

Arguments Today

Senior Advocates Shadan Farasat, PC Sen and Raju Ramachandran along with Advocates Prashant Bhushan, Vrinda Grover, Nizamuddin Pasha and Shahrukh Alam made arguments today.

Advocate Bhushan, who began the arguments today, submitted that ongoing SIR had put the burden of proof on voters, unlike the SIR held in 2003.

"The structural problem that has arisen in the present SIR is because the onus has been placed entirely on the voter. They are being told, first, that they must fill up an enumeration form, failing which they will be excluded from the rolls and even from the draft electoral roll. Second, they are required to furnish certain documents, and if those documents are not provided, they face exclusion," Bhushan said.

Advocate Grover questioned the manner in which the ECI was conducting the special revision.

"Section 21(3) does not unshackle the process from the rules. The only unshackling it permits is from the timing and frequency of revision. It nowhere dispenses with compliance with Rule 25(2). The Election Commission itself states that it is conducting the exercise afresh. If it is being conducted afresh, then Rules 4 to 23 necessarily apply. Those rules bind the process, and that is the manner in which such an exercise is required to be carried out," she said.

Farasat addressed the Court on whether the ECI can determine citizenship of a person through SIR.

"It is entirely within the discretion of the Government. In the absence of a register of citizens, the question that necessarily arises is: how does any authority, including the Election Commission, go about determining citizenship, assuming it seeks to test citizenship as a requirement? That is the core issue," Farasat said.

Sen argued that ECI had not revealed any material or reasoning for carrying out the SIR.

"Election Commission’s own publication shows that a summary revision had already been completed and that issues of addition and deletion had been addressed. In that situation, My Lord, the question that arises is: where was the urgency? If deletions and corrections had already been carried out in the preceding period, what necessitated this sudden and hurried exercise?," the senior counsel said.

Similarly, Pasha argued that an exercise is intensive or summary for a State, a constituency or the country as a whole but not for an individual voter.

"To suggest that after 2003 individuals were entered into the rolls without substantiation is not only unmerited but is also contrary to the settled principle under the Evidence Act that official acts are presumed to have been regularly and lawfully performed," he said.

Pasha added that ambit of the power claimed by ECI is excessive, and the manner of its exercise is completely arbitrary and wholly non-transparent.

Alam argued that even a preliminary striking off of names is not contemplated in the absence of credible allegations.

"The threshold is therefore very limited. This is a far cry from any independent determination of citizenship. What is being contemplated here is a much lower threshold, confined to verification. It is not adjudication. It is not determination," she said.

Advocate Alam submitted that "determination of citizenship is not merely a legal exercise".

"Very often, it is accompanied by a political and public discourse that frames the issue in a particular manner...Even today, there are Ministers and high public officials making public statements alleging and declaring that they will abuse the process in the conduct of this Special Intensive Revision. Your Lordships are seized of the matter, and must also be conscious of the kind of abuse of process that such discourse almost invites," Alam submitted.

Ramachandran, who was the last counsel to argue, submitted that every power is coupled with a duty, and that the ECI must ensure that every eligible person is included in the roll.

"If the Election Commission claims such plenary power, there is a corresponding duty that follows. And what is that duty? While it is the choice of a citizen whether or not to vote, including the option of NOTA, the Election Commission has a constitutional duty to prepare a complete electoral roll. It has a duty to ensure that every eligible person is included in that roll," he said.

However, he submitted, the entire methodology adopted by the ECI was not that of a facilitator.

"On the contrary, by creating roadblocks, by excluding accepted identity documents, and by placing the burden entirely on the individual, the Election Commission has, I would go so far as to submit, abdicated its constitutional duty to ensure that every eligible Indian citizen is included in the electoral roll," the senior counsel said.