Tamil Nadu SIR | Supreme Court Rejects Plea Of Candidate Deleted From Electoral Roll; ECI Says 'It's Too Late'

The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a plea filed by a person whose name was deleted from the electoral roll following the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise in Tamil Nadu, after the Election Commission of India (ECI) opposed the request on the ground that the challenge was belated.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi was hearing a petition filed by C Geetha.

Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan argued that the deletion of the petitioner's name was unjustified as she had been on the electoral roll continuously since 2007 and possessed multiple identity documents demonstrating eligibility. He told the Court that the petitioner held a passport, Aadhaar card, and earlier Elector Photo Identity Card (EPIC), and questioned what further proof could be required to establish his entitlement.  

He further argued that the petitioner had not received any notice prior to the deletion of his name from the electoral roll. Sankaranarayanan submitted that the issue was not confined to contesting the election but also concerned the petitioner's right to vote.  

Opposing the plea, Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, appearing for the Election Commission of India, submitted that the request had been made too late in the timeline.  "It is too late," Naidu said.

"I don't understand why the election commission should get concerned with it. Why do you want to exclude people?" Sankaranarayanan submitted.

"When somebody comes to the Supreme Court of India with every single piece of evidence over the last 15 years, I have my passport. What more am I supposed to show? Passport is proof of citizenship you should automatically add everybody who has a passport. I did not even receive a single notice. Forget my nomination I am saying at least my right to vote should be there," he added.

The bench however refused to entertain the matter. 

After the bench dismissed the matter, Sankaranarayanan said, "When we first came in July, Justice Bagchi said that if there is mass exclusion, people will be protected. That is what is happening."

Naidu responded, "Unfortunately, somebody sleeps over for months, and for a single person, now they are saying mass exclusion."

The petition was filed challenging the Madras High Court's order passed on April 7, as per which her petition was dismissed.

The petitioner said that she was seeking to file a nomination as an independent candidate in Uthangarai and Bargur assembly constituencies. She claimed that she got to know about the deletion of her name only on April 2, 2026, when she was seeking to file the nomination.

The Election Commission told the High Court that the petitioner had not filed any objection within the timeline of the SIR process.

The High Court, while dismissing the petition, observed that the petitioner ought to have been vigilant and exercised her rights within the timeline set by the ECI. The High Court further cited the bar on interference with the electoral processs to decline relief.

Case :C GEETHA Vs THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER | SLP(C) No. 13042/2026