Explained| Petitioners' Arguments In Supreme Court Against SIR

2025 was a year that had the Supreme Court occupied with one much-debated and discussed issue : Special Intensive Revision, the 'SIR'.The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi concluded its hearing in December 2025 on the arguments of petitioners who have challenged the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) initiated by the Election Commission of India (ECI) across various states. The ECI commenced its arguments on January 6, 2026. This article sets out to unpack the concept of SIR and the legal controversy surrounding it.What Is SIR? How Does The ECI Plan To Implement It ? Simply put, the SIR is a process which aims to create electoral rolls from scratch. In the process, a comprehensive update and verification of the voters on the rolls is done by the ECI at grass-root level. The ECI's officials, known as Booth Level Officers (BLOs) would be carrying out house-to-house enumeration, which includes the collection of enumeration forms and intensive verification of entries. The first announcement of SIR by the ECI was on June 24, 2025, limited only to the state of Bihar, ahead of the State Assembly Elections. Subsequently, a second phase of the SIR was announced on October 27, 2025. The second phase will commence from November 4 and covers 12 States and Union Territories for the 2025-26 cycle. The second phase covers Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Chhattisgarh, Goa, Gujarat, Kerala, Lakshadweep, Madhya Pradesh, Puducherry, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal.The key reasons for conducting the SIR, as stated by the ECI are “ rapid urbanization, frequent migration, young citizens becoming eligible to vote, non-reporting of deaths and inclusion of the names of foreign illegal immigrants have necessitated the conduct of an intensive revision so as to ensure integrity and preparation of error-free electoral rolls.”Over 13 petitioners, including NGOs, leaders from various political parties and individual activists, have filed pleas challenging the SIR process. These include- the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) (lead petitioner), PUCL, Yogendra Yadav, Mahua Moitra (TMC MP), Manoj Jha (RJD MP), KC Venugopal(Congress MP), Supriya Sule (NCP SP), to name a few. What Are The Key Constitutional & Statutory Provisions Relevant To The Issue? Article 324 - details that the superintendence, direction and control of elections is vested in the ECI; Article 325- mandates that no person can be excluded from the general voters' roll in any constituency purely on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or any of them; Article 326 (which is also referenced by the ECI in SIR press release) - provides for universal adult sufferage and states: “ The elections to the House of the People and to the Legislative Assembly of every State shall be on the basis of adult suffrage; that is to say, every person who is a citizen of India and who is not less thaneighteen years of age on such date as may be fixed in that behalf by or under any law made by the appropriate Legislature and is not otherwise disqualified under this Constitution or any law made by the appropriate Legislature on the ground of non-residence, unsoundness of mind, crime or corrupt or illegal practice, shall be entitled to be registered as a voter at any such election.”Section 21 of the Representation of People Act, 1950 - details on the preparation and revision of electoral rolls. S. 21(3) states “ Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), the Election Commission may at any time, for reasons to be recorded, direct a special revision of the electoral roll for any constituency or part of a constituency in such manner as it may think fit:Provided that subject to the other provisions of this Act, the electoral roll for the constituency, as in force at the time of the issue of any such direction, shall continue to be in force until the completion of the special revision so directed.” S. 21(2) details on the summary revisions of the rolls before each general elections/ state assembly election. Key Arguments Raised By Petitioners Who Challenge The SIR : Determination Of Citizenship Through SIR Not Within ECI's Mandate: A major argument raised by the petitioners was that the SIR was an indirect 'NRC-like process', making ECI a de facto authority to verify citizenship. The petitioners argued that wherever doubts on the eligibility of the voter are raised, they have to be dealt with as per the process laid down under S.16 of the RP Act. S. 16(1) of the Act states that a person is disqualified from the electoral roll if it is proven that (1) he is not a citizen of India; (2) he is of unsound mind or declared so; (3) he is disqualified from voting under any law relating to corrupt practises and offences related to elections. However, by the process of SIR, the ECI creates a temporary list of voters and puts the burden on the individuals to prove through specific documents that they are citizens in order to be on the voters' list. The...

Explained| Petitioners' Arguments In Supreme Court Against SIR

Anmol Kaur Bawa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Explained| Petitioners' Arguments In Supreme Court Against SIR

Anmol Kaur Bawa

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers