The Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere with the Election Commission of India's decision to use the 2002 electoral roll as the reference point for the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Sikkim.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana heard a Public Interest Litigation filed by a Sikkim-based organisation challenging the use of the 2002 electoral roll. The petitioner had sought special treatment for Sikkim, arguing that an earlier Intensive Revision conducted in 1979, 1983, 1988 or 1993 should instead be used as reference material.

The petitioner's counsel argued that Sikkim's demographic profile was different from that of other States and that its population data did not correspond with the electoral data. The counsel also pointed to changes in population figures following successive revisions and questioned the basis for selecting 2002.

The Election Commission, however, told the court that SIR had already been conducted in Sikkim in 2002 and that it was using the last available SIR electoral roll as the reference. It also informed the Bench that the process of considering claims and objections was already underway and that the final electoral roll was scheduled to be published on September 6.

Justice Bagchi observed that it was not the petitioner's case that no SIR had taken place in Sikkim in 2002. He questioned the proposal to move the reference point back to 1993, observing that doing so could result in an asymmetrical approach to the SIR exercise being undertaken across the country.

The Chief Justice also questioned why the issue was being raised by the petitioner when political parties and other stakeholders in Sikkim had not opposed the Election Commission's decision.

“None of the political party has come forward. It's acceptable to everyone,” the Chief Justice observed during the hearing, questioning the basis on which the petitioner was seeking judicial intervention.

Justice Bagchi further noted that the SIR notification itself contained the basis for selecting the relevant year. The petitioner, however, maintained that the 2002 roll merely represented a milestone and did not adequately explain the rationale for choosing that year.

In its order, the Supreme Court noted that it was undisputed that an SIR had been conducted in Sikkim in 2002. The Bench said the Election Commission had adopted a uniform year across the country and described the decision as essentially a policy choice.

The court observed that no political party or other stakeholder from Sikkim had come forward to oppose the decision and concluded that the issue did not present a case warranting judicial review.

"It is not in dispute that SIR had taken place in Sikkim in 2002. ECI has adopted a uniform year on a pan-India basis. That being essentially a policy decision against which no political party or other stakeholders from the state have come forward to oppose, we do not find it to be a case [fit for judicial review]. We have heard ECI also. It is informed that steps have already been taken. We see no good ground to interfere with fixation of the year. The petitioner may pursue the matter with the concerned stakeholder," the bench observed in the order.

Case : SIKKIMESE MULNIWASI SURAKCHA SANGH (SMSS), A REGISTERED PUBLIC TRUST v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ORS.| W.P.(C) No. 979/2026