SIR Ordered In Chhattisgarh With Polls In 2028; Why Other 2028 Election States Left Out? Petitioners In Supreme Court

In the pleas before Supreme Court challenging the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in various states, Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran today questioned the urgency in conducting SIR in some states while excluding others.

He pointed out that Chhattisgarh goes to polls only in 2028 and asked what the urgency was there, and why other states also scheduled to go to the polls in 2028 were excluded from the exercise.

“They said Bihar is imminent so we are starting from Bihar. That is used for many states. Chhattisgarh goes to the poll in 2028 so what is the urgency there? And what is the reason for excluding other states that also going to poll in 2028?”, Ramachandran said.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a batch of pleas challenging the SIR being conducted across various states. The Court today reserved judgment after hearing rejoinder arguments from various advocates for the petitioners.

Ramachandran submitted that even if the power exercised by the Election Commission was sui generis or plenary under Article 324 of the Constitution, it was still subject to judicial review and could not be exercised arbitrarily. He argued that there was nothing on record to show application of mind by the Commission while deciding to undertake the SIR in selected states.

Ramachandran further submitted that while the Election Commission had a duty to ensure that only citizens voted, it also had a corresponding duty to prepare a full electoral roll and proactively include all eligible persons. He argued that the methodology adopted in the present exercise was not facilitative, but instead created roadblocks by dropping accepted identity documents and shifting the burden entirely onto voters.

“Whether to vote or not to vote is a choice of a citizen, he may not go to the polling booth or he made do NOTA. The Election Commission has a duty to prepare a full electoral roll. It has a duty to see that all eligible persons are included there. It cannot say 'we can't help it if someone didn't fill in this form'. If this is your higher constitution role it is also your proactive constitutional role to see that everyone eligible comes on that roll. The entire methodology of this exercise has not been that of facilitator. It is in fact by creating these road blocks, by dropping certain identity documents etc contrary to its high role, it has abdicated its duty to ensure that every eligible Indian citizen comes on the roll.”

Advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that the SIR had resulted in large-scale exclusion, particularly of women and migrant workers, because the burden was placed on voters to fill enumeration forms. He submitted that the Election Commission was attempting to prepare a de novo voter list, something that had not been done earlier except in one constituency in Uttar Pradesh.

He also questioned how Electoral Registration Officers could determine citizenship, stating that in the 2003 SIR the burden of proving citizenship was not placed on voters and enumerators were not tasked with deciding citizenship.

Bhushan further argued that the right to vote could not be taken away arbitrarily and stressed the need for transparency at all stages of revision, including publication of deleted names and reasons for deletion.

Advocate Vrinda Grover argued that the Commission had effectively amended the statutory framework through an executive notification without showing the source of such power.

Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat argued that citizenship determination could not be left to individual agencies in the absence of a national register of citizens as contemplated in the Citizenship Act.

He pointed out that across statutes such as the Advocates Act, Patents Act and Trademarks Act, citizenship requirements were satisfied through self-declaration along with proof of residence and date of birth, and that even passports were issued on this basis.

He emphasised that the Election Commission was addressing a problem without placing any data on record to show its extent and the actual number of non-citizens identified was relevant. He said the Election Commission appeared to be finding a solution for a problem that did not necessarily exist, and questioned whether it was justified to subject a population of 8.9 crore to such an exercise without placing figures before the Court.

Senior Advocate PC Sen submitted that petitions seeking SIR before every election could result in SIR becoming a parallel mechanism replacing the statutory process, and give the ECI an option to circumvent the procedure and safeguard prescribed under the law.

Advocate Nizam Pasha pointed out that a summary revision had already been carried out before the SIR and no reasons were given for why it was found inadequate.

Arguments concluded, and the Court reserved judgment.

Case no. W.P.(C) No. 640/2025

Case Title: Association for Democratic Reforms and Ors. v. Election Commission of India