The Supreme Court of India found itself at the heart of a contentious legal battle this week, as petitioners challenged the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) sweeping Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The case, heard on December 2, 2025, has drawn national attention, raising fundamental questions about the boundaries of the ECI’s authority, the protection of voting rights, and the integrity of the democratic process.
Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the petitioners, did not mince words as he addressed the bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. According to LawChakra and Bar & Bench, Dr. Singhvi declared, “No one in 75 years has attempted an exercise like this.” He argued that the ECI’s unprecedented SIR, which began in Bihar and later extended to states such as Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, and Kerala, overreaches its constitutional and statutory mandate, violating both the Representation of People Act (RP Act) and the Indian Constitution.
The SIR, launched on June 24, 2025, in Bihar ahead of the state’s Assembly elections, required voters to provide updated documentation to remain on the electoral rolls. For many, especially those lacking the necessary paperwork, this sudden demand proved daunting. The ECI released a draft electoral roll on August 1, revealing 7.24 crore registered voters—but also showing that approximately 65 lakh names had been removed. This mass revision triggered alarms among opposition parties, NGOs, and advocacy groups, who feared that genuine voters could be disenfranchised en masse. The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and others petitioned the Supreme Court, demanding that the ECI disclose the full list of dropped voters and specify the reasons for each deletion, arguing that transparency was essential to prevent wrongful exclusion.
Dr. Singhvi’s critique centered on the legal and procedural foundations of the SIR. He contended that Section 21(3) of the RP Act, which governs special revisions of electoral rolls, was never intended to justify such broad, statewide exercises. “The very structure shows it is meant for a constituency or part of it so ‘any’ cannot suddenly mean ‘all’,” he explained to the Court. He insisted that special revisions are only permissible under extraordinary circumstances, citing the lone historical example of Thakurdwara, Uttar Pradesh, where deletions and additions were carefully scrutinized and justified for specific, localized reasons. “What is happening now—mass deletions and additions across entire states—is not a special revision but an intensive revision, done without proper procedure, causal nexus, or individualisation,” he said, according to Bar & Bench.
Singhvi lambasted the ECI’s reliance on generic factors such as rapid urbanization and frequent migration—phenomena that have persisted for over a decade—as insufficient grounds for such a sweeping revision. “They rely on broad reasons like rapid urbanisation and frequent migration, which have been ongoing for over ten years; such grounds cannot justify Section 21(3). Frequent migration is equally vague and does not meet the statutory threshold,” he told the bench. He urged the Court to interpret Section 21(3) strictly, emphasizing that reasons for revisions must be constituency-specific and individualized, not generic or one-size-fits-all.
Beyond procedural concerns, the petitioners raised the specter of a de facto National Register of Citizens (NRC) process, implemented by the ECI without parliamentary approval. Dr. Singhvi accused the ECI of arrogating to itself powers it simply does not have, particularly regarding citizenship verification. “Determination of citizenship lies exclusively with the Central government under Sections 8 and 9 of the Citizenship Act or with the courts and Foreigners Tribunals. By requiring EROs to scrutinise citizenship documents, mark suspected non-citizens and report them to the Home Department, the Election Commission has acted ultra vires the Constitution and the Citizenship Act,” he argued. He warned that the ECI had effectively created a parallel mechanism for citizenship determination within the electoral process, undermining statutory limits and bypassing established parliamentary procedures.
Perhaps most troubling to the petitioners was the reversal of the burden of proof. “The original list becomes a presumptive temporary list. Second, I have to prove that I am a citizen. The burden is reversed. They file an objection against me and I am forced into an adjudication. This is very serious,” Singhvi said, as reported by Bar & Bench. In effect, citizens found themselves having to defend their right to vote, rather than enjoying the presumption of eligibility.
Other advocates echoed these concerns, highlighting the real-world consequences of the SIR. Advocate Vrinda Grover pointed out that women, who were on the rolls as of January 2025, were missing from the draft roll just months later—a drop she attributed to the SIR. “There is a drop of 4 lakh to 7,90,000. There are reasons in lived reality which affect women differently,” Grover said. She argued that the SIR’s procedures were designed in a way that risked excluding vulnerable populations.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, meanwhile, drew attention to the intense pressure faced by Booth Level Officers (BLOs), referencing reports of suicides among BLOs linked to the SIR process. He questioned the need for such haste and the rationale behind a “de novo” preparation of the rolls, contrasting it with previous revision exercises. Bhushan also cited investigative reporting by Reporters Collective, which found that over five lakh duplicate voters remained on the Bihar rolls even after the SIR, suggesting that the exercise may not have achieved its stated goals.
The ECI, for its part, has defended the SIR as a necessary step to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the voter rolls, especially in light of significant internal migration and urbanization. During earlier hearings, the Commission’s counsel accused political parties of engaging in “fear-mongering” about the process. Still, the ECI’s explanations have done little to assuage critics, who argue that the process lacks transparency and sufficient legal justification.
Political parties across the spectrum have weighed in. The Kerala government, along with parties such as the Communist Party of India (Marxist), the Communist Party of India, and the Indian Union Muslim League, have all filed petitions challenging the SIR’s validity. Their concerns echo those of the NGOs and advocacy groups: that the SIR, as implemented, risks disenfranchising large numbers of genuine voters and encroaches upon legislative prerogatives.
As the Supreme Court prepares to resume hearings on December 4, the stakes could hardly be higher. At the core of the case lies a fundamental question: How far can the Election Commission go in its efforts to maintain clean and accurate electoral rolls, and at what cost to individual rights and democratic norms? The Court’s eventual ruling will shape not only the fate of millions of voters but also the future contours of India’s electoral democracy.
For now, the country waits, watching closely as the highest court in the land weighs the balance between innovation and overreach, security and exclusion, and the enduring promise of the right to vote.
