Tempers ran high in India’s Supreme Court on December 2, 2025, as a heated debate unfolded over the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls—a process currently under the legal microscope in Bihar, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, and several other states. The courtroom drama, featuring some of India’s most prominent legal minds, has cast a spotlight on the mechanics of electoral roll revision and the boundaries of the Election Commission’s authority.
At the heart of the dispute is the SIR, a sweeping revision exercise covering nearly 51 crore electors across nine states and three Union Territories. The process, intended to clean up voter rolls and ensure their accuracy ahead of crucial elections, has instead triggered a volley of legal challenges and public scrutiny. Petitioners, represented by Senior Advocates A.M. Singhvi, Vrinda Grover, and Prashant Bhushan, have raised pointed questions about the legality, fairness, and transparency of the SIR. The ECI, for its part, has been represented by Senior Advocates Rakesh Dwivedi and Maninder Singh, defending the commission’s actions and intentions.
One of the most striking moments in the proceedings came when Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), declared, “We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that lot of people are viewing the Election Commission as a despot.” This sharp characterization drew immediate objection from the Supreme Court bench, with Chief Justice Surya Kant cautioning, “Let us not make sweeping statements. Confine your submissions to pleadings.” According to The Hindu, the court’s rebuke set the tone for a day marked by intense legal wrangling and careful judicial oversight.
Bhushan’s criticisms did not stop at rhetoric. He argued that the ECI “has no authority to verify citizenship” through the SIR and pointed out the presence of multiple voters appearing several times with identical photographs. He further accused the Commission of not utilizing its own de-duplication software to weed out duplicate entries, a charge that aligns with a recent analysis by the Reporters’ Collective, which identified more than 500,000 duplicate entries even after the SIR process. Bhushan pressed for acknowledgment slips for enumeration forms and demanded access to the 2003 electoral rolls in a searchable format to bolster transparency. He also questioned why the ECI expects political parties to convert voter data into machine-readable form when the commission could release it in that format itself.
Transparency, or the lack thereof, became a recurring theme as Vrinda Grover took the floor. She argued that the enumeration form used in the SIR exercise was designed in a way that disadvantaged women and other vulnerable groups, citing a “sharp fall in women’s entries between January 2025 and the current draft electoral roll.” She contended that the form adopted in the SIR does not appear in the official Rules, thus narrowing the legislative procedure without statutory authority. Grover’s concerns about exclusion echo broader anxieties about the inclusiveness of India’s electoral process.
Senior Advocate Singhvi, meanwhile, zeroed in on the legal underpinnings of the SIR. He argued that the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (RP) does not authorize a blanket, statewide SIR. According to Singhvi, “Reasons under Section 21(3) are by nature individualised. They can never be one size fits all. That is the nucleus of my argument.” He insisted that the ECI must provide constituency-specific reasons for any special revision, rather than relying on broad themes such as “rapid urbanisation” or “frequent migration.” Singhvi pointedly remarked, “Never before has anyone classified an entire state. Nobody in 75 years has thought of this brainchild,” suggesting the ECI was stretching its statutory powers beyond what Parliament ever contemplated.
Perhaps most controversially, Singhvi accused the ECI of introducing a de facto citizenship screen—an action he claimed was outside its remit. He explained that Sections 8 and 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955, vest the authority to determine citizenship solely in the Union Government, courts, and Foreigners Tribunals. The SIR, Singhvi argued, divides post-2003 voters into three distinct groups and requires different documents from each, creating arbitrary classifications and violating the equality doctrine under Article 14 of the Constitution. “The SIR turns the existing roll into a presumptive temporary list and shifts the burden to the voter,” he said, warning that such a move upends the legal principle that the State must carry the burden of proving non-citizenship.
On the other side, the ECI has maintained that it is adhering to the law and has provided sufficient safeguards throughout the SIR process. The Commission clarified before the Supreme Court that Aadhaar cannot be used as proof of citizenship and will serve only as proof of identity during the ongoing revision. This clarification comes amid concerns that political parties might seek to elevate the legal status of Aadhaar beyond what is stipulated under law. The Supreme Court itself has reiterated on multiple occasions, most recently on September 1, 2025, that Aadhaar cards, issued under the Aadhaar Act, 2016, are to be accepted as the 12th document for establishing identity in the revised electoral rolls, but not as standalone proof of citizenship.
In Bihar, where the SIR has been particularly contentious, the Supreme Court directed the Bihar State Legal Services Authority on October 9, 2025, to ensure immediate assistance to individuals reportedly excluded from the final voter rolls. The Court has also made it clear that claims and objections can continue to be filed even after the statutory deadline, and warned that any illegality in the process would render the exercise void.
Kerala’s concerns added another layer of complexity. Reports from the state highlighted manpower constraints due to the simultaneous SIR and local body elections. The Kerala State Election Commission had deployed 176,000 workers, with an additional 25,000 assigned by the State Government. The Supreme Court instructed the ECI not to call for any additional government staff and asked the Kerala government to formally request an extension of the SIR enumeration timeline by December 3, 2025—a request the ECI was told to consider sympathetically and decide upon by the following day.
As the legal battle rages on, the Supreme Court’s approach has been one of cautious scrutiny. While the bench has allowed space for robust argument, it has also pushed back against hyperbolic rhetoric, urging all sides to ground their submissions in the pleadings and the law. The hearings are set to continue on December 4, 2025, promising further debate over the future of India’s electoral rolls and the powers of its Election Commission.
The outcome of this case will resonate far beyond the courtroom, shaping not only the upcoming elections but also the very foundations of India’s democracy. For now, all eyes remain fixed on the Supreme Court, as it weighs the delicate balance between electoral integrity and individual rights.
