The deadline for the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of India’s electoral rolls has arrived, setting the stage for a legal and political showdown that could shape the country’s democratic process for years to come. On December 11, 2025, as the enumeration period drew to a close across 12 states and Union Territories, the Supreme Court found itself at the center of heated arguments questioning the very foundation of the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) approach to updating voter lists.
The SIR process, which began in Bihar ahead of its Assembly elections, was quickly expanded to include nine other states—Chhattisgarh, Goa, Gujarat, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal—and three Union Territories: Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, and Puducherry. According to the ECI, this phase of the exercise covered nearly 51 crore electors, spanning 321 districts and 1,843 Assembly Constituencies. The Commission described the revision as the most comprehensive clean-up of voter rolls in two decades, involving door-to-door checks, pre-filled forms, digital submissions, and a fresh scrutiny of existing voter information.
Yet, while the ECI emphasized the need for accuracy and transparency, critics voiced deep concerns about the process’s scope and the rationale behind it. At the Supreme Court, Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, representing the Tamil Nadu government, argued that the ECI’s October 27, 2025, order for SIR in the nine states and three Union Territories was little more than a “copy-paste” of the July 24, 2025, Bihar SIR order. “The manner in which the Election Commission of India is attempting to conduct a Special Intensive Revision, [it] … , is disabling the right to vote and excluding electors,” Ramachandran told the bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, as reported by The Leaflet.
Ramachandran’s critique was pointed. He asserted that the ECI, which is constitutionally mandated to act as an “enabler” of voters’ participation, was instead behaving like a “suspicious policeman,” undermining the very rights it was supposed to protect. “This militates against the Constitutional role assigned to the ECI to protect the right to vote under Article 326, and the Representation of the People Act, 1950 – Section 16 and Section 19,” he argued. The advocate further questioned the ECI’s justification for the SIR, which cited rapid urbanisation and migration as reasons for the revision. He contended that these factors did not constitute the kind of “surprise situation” that would warrant invoking the Commission’s reserve powers under Article 324 of the Constitution.
“When there is a statutory scheme to deal with suspected citizens, what is the authority of the EC to usurp the power and suspend the citizenship?” Ramachandran asked. He insisted that the ECI has no power to “suspect the citizenship of a citizen and suspend the citizenship,” and wondered aloud, “Can the EC play a vigilante role?” According to The Leaflet, he maintained that the Commission must “start with a position of trust and not the suspicion of a policeman.”
The Supreme Court bench itself raised probing questions about the ECI’s powers and approach. During the December 9 hearing, the justices asked, “Can the ECI adopt an inquisitorial approach to determine whether a person is a citizen by requesting documents? Or is its power of supervision limited to verifying the age and residence of an elector?” The Court emphasized that the ECI’s authority under Article 324 “must be exercised in line with constitutional norms of fairness and Article 14.” Senior advocates Shadan Farasat, P C Sen, and others joined Ramachandran in challenging the SIR, arguing that the Commission’s actions risked disenfranchising legitimate voters.
At the heart of the controversy lies the ECI’s assertion that annual “Summary Revision” of voter rolls is no longer sufficient to address long-standing inaccuracies—particularly in the face of India’s rapid urbanisation and migration trends, which can result in voters appearing on multiple rolls. The last nationwide house-to-house revision took place between 2002 and 2004, and since then, issues of duplication and outdated records have persisted. The new SIR process, according to the ECI, aims to create an accurate, transparent, and legally sound voter list ahead of major state polls expected in 2026.
The process itself is thorough, if somewhat daunting for voters. Block Level Officers (BLOs) visit homes with printed forms listing each voter’s name, EPIC number, address, constituency, and photograph. Voters must verify all details, provide legacy linkage information tracing their name—or a parent’s or relative’s name—to the last intensive revision more than 20 years ago, and confirm their nationality. The ECI has digitized old rolls on voters.eci.gov.in, allowing citizens to check records and submit forms online if a BLO does not visit. Missing the verification process or ignoring the form could result in exclusion from the draft or final lists, effectively barring individuals from voting in upcoming elections.
The timeline for the SIR process is tight. The enumeration deadline and rationalization of polling stations both fell on December 11, 2025. Preparation of the draft roll is set for December 12, followed by publication of the draft electoral roll on December 16. From December 16 to January 15, 2026, citizens can file claims and objections, with a notice phase running concurrently until February 7. The final publication of electoral rolls is scheduled for February 14, 2026.
Despite these procedural safeguards, critics remain unconvinced. Ramachandran questioned whether Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, which allows the ECI to direct a special revision “for any constituency or part of a constituency,” could truly be stretched to cover nine states and three Union Territories at once. He described the Commission’s reasoning as “very facile, easy and lazy,” particularly in states like Chhattisgarh, where assembly elections are not due until December 2028.
Justice Bagchi, for his part, noted that the issues of migration cited by the ECI could extend beyond internal movement to include cross-border migration, raising further questions about the scope and intent of the revision. Still, the bench clarified that its queries were part of a “dialectical discussion” to clarify the arguments, not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
The Supreme Court will resume its hearing on December 16, when Senior Advocate Rakesah Dwivedi, representing the Election Commission, is expected to present arguments in defense of the SIR process. With the stakes high and the deadline now passed, the outcome of this legal battle could have far-reaching implications for the integrity of India’s electoral rolls and the fundamental right to vote.
The coming weeks will reveal whether the ECI’s sweeping revision will stand up to judicial scrutiny—or whether, as its critics claim, it has overstepped its constitutional mandate. For now, millions of voters and political observers across India are watching closely, aware that the future of the country’s democracy may well hang in the balance.
