SIR Not An Annual Feature, We Can't Interfere Too Much & Keep Suggesting; ECI Doing It After 20 Years, Says Supreme Court During Hearing

The Supreme Court, on Thursday, orally remarked that since the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls is not an annual procedural exercise, the Court must be cautious in making interferences. Emphasising that the Election Commission is conducting such an exercise after nearly twenty years, the bench led by the CJI said the Court cannot micro-manage the process.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a batch of petitions challenging the SIR process undertaken by the ECI.

Today, Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, appearing for petitioners challenging the SIR in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, argued that the reasons cited by the Election Commission of India for carrying out the SIR did not bear a reasonable nexus with the stated grounds of rapid urbanisation and frequent migration. He submitted that the removal of voter names by Booth Level Officers (BLOs) was effectively equivalent to suspending a person's citizenship.

At the outset, Ramachandran pointed to the five reasons listed by the ECI in Bihar for initiating the SIR: rapid urbanisation, frequent migration, young citizens becoming eligible to vote, non-reporting of deaths and inclusion of foreign illegal migrants. He argued that the Commission's stated purpose was not to identify non-citizens, and therefore allowing BLOs to verify documents and doubt a voter's eligibility was unreasonable and divorced from the official grounds.

“Since this was not your stated purpose at all, the BLO's suspicion of why this person is not there is alien to the exercise,” he submitted. Drawing on the 1995 decision in Lal Babu Hussein, he said that earlier instances of SIR were clearly aimed at removing non-citizens in parts of Delhi and Bombay, unlike the present circumstances.

Ramachandran stressed that the three qualifications for universal adult franchise - age, residence and citizenship - stand on equal footing. If these conditions are met, he argued, the Commission's duty is to facilitate the exercise of voting rights. He added that there were no guidelines for BLOs or Electoral Registration Officers to doubt a person's credentials.

'Removal of Names Amounts to Suspending Citizenship'

He further argued that the deletion of names from electoral rolls amounted to the ECI assuming a power to suspend citizenship, which is outside its mandate. “If Parliament has enacted the Citizenship Act, then questions of citizenship fall exclusively within that statutory framework,” he said.

He submitted that the Foreigners Tribunal mechanism and the Citizenship Act already provide the statutory route for determining doubtful citizenship, and any inquiry must follow the Representation of the People Act (ROPA), not independent suspicion by BLOs.

On the Meaning of Migration

Countering his argument that the SIR does not align with any legitimate aim relating to migration, Justice Bagchi pointed out that the term “migration” need not be confined to domestic movement alone. “The word migration does not have a solely domestic import,” he observed, citing examples of IT professionals from West Bengal moving to southern states.

Ramachandran clarified that migration was cited as a reason specific to Bihar and objected to it being used as a basis for initiating SIR in nine states and three Union Territories. He argued that it was an “extra-charitable” interpretation.

CJI Surya Kant added examples of farm labourers in Punjab who migrated decades ago but retain roots in other states. “See the other side. They are entering Punjab, but the youth of Punjab, by all legal and illegal means, are migrating abroad, so they are filling that space,” he observed.

Why SIR in Nine States? Petitioners Challenge Logic

Ramachandran argued that the ECI's impugned order does not disclose any relevant or state-specific reasoning under Section 21(3) of ROPA. He noted that the same reasons were mechanically applied to states such as West Bengal, Kerala, Chhattisgarh, Goa, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Rajasthan, as well as Lakshadweep, Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Puducherry.

He questioned whether rapid urbanisation and migration could reasonably be presumed in places like Lakshadweep or the Andaman Islands. “This is, with respect, a facile, easy and lazy assumption,” he said.

When the CJI asked how population changes in smaller territories like the Andaman Islands should be understood, he recalled visiting Havelock Island years ago and discovering that most residents were migrants from Punjab, Bihar and West Bengal.

The CJI then cautioned against turning SIR into a recurring exercise. “SIR cannot be a procedural modality. We cannot interfere too much and keep suggesting. Then it becomes an annual feature. SIR is not an annual feature. Keep in mind they are doing this after twenty years,” he said.

Ramachandran responded that precisely because the exercise is being undertaken after two decades, the ECI must demonstrate seriousness and clarity of purpose, which was absent in its notifications.

He pointed to the ECI's 24 June notification, noting that there was no indication of a pan-India plan at the time. If nationwide revision was contemplated, the Commission should have provided state-wise reasons.

The counsel also questioned why SIR was triggered in Chhattisgarh, where Assembly elections are not due until December 2028. “Some states going earlier to the polls are not in SIR, but a state like Chhattisgarh is under this tight timeframe,” he noted, adding that “nine is a big enough number, but which nine, and on what principles?”

The hearing will continue next Tuesday.