The Supreme Court of India, in a series of hearings held on November 26 and 27, 2025, has placed the spotlight on the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls across several states, including Bihar, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, and Kerala. The process, intended to cleanse the voter lists by removing ineligible or deceased voters, has ignited a heated debate over the integrity of the revision, the role of Aadhaar as proof of citizenship, and the constitutional safeguards for voters at risk of disenfranchisement.
Presiding over the proceedings, Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi repeatedly stressed the necessity of weeding out dead voters to prevent any political party from gaining an unfair advantage. According to India Today, the bench remarked, “Political workers know very well who are the dead voters and those who are alive and have migrated. It all depends on the political gradient depending on your power. The party which is stronger gets all the votes of dead voters. That is why dead voters need to be weeded out.”
Yet, this seemingly straightforward goal has proven contentious. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing petitioners from Bihar, objected to the methodology of the SIR, arguing that while the ECI has the authority to conduct such revisions, the process must not be exclusionary. “Any exercise of revising electoral rolls post-Independence must not be exclusionary or else it will be unconstitutional,” Sibal contended, as reported by Hindustan Times. He raised concerns that ECI officers, by reviewing enumeration forms, were effectively making determinations about citizenship—decisions he insisted should be left to quasi-judicial tribunals like the Foreigners Tribunal. Sibal emphasized, “Even if one is to be excluded from the rolls, a process must be followed that is reasonable and fair.”
These concerns are not merely theoretical. In Bihar, following the SIR, approximately 366,000 voters were deleted from the rolls, with no appeals filed against their removal as of November 26, 2025. The Supreme Court noted that initial fears of mass disenfranchisement—"crores of people will be excluded"—did not materialize. Nonetheless, Sibal cautioned that the lack of appeals might not reflect the absence of errors; in remote areas, illiteracy and lack of awareness could prevent affected citizens from seeking redress. The bench responded, “If there are instances when a person who is a bonafide citizen has been deleted, we are looking for such cases to come before us.”
Another major flashpoint has been the use of Aadhaar as proof of citizenship. The Supreme Court made it clear that Aadhaar, a statutory identification document primarily for welfare benefits, cannot serve as absolute evidence of Indian citizenship. Chief Justice Surya Kant questioned, “Aadhaar is a creation of statute for availing benefits. Just because a person was granted Aadhaar for ration, should he be made a voter also? Suppose someone belongs to a neighbouring country and works as a labourer, shall he be allowed to vote?” This line of questioning highlighted the bench’s skepticism about equating Aadhaar possession with eligibility to vote.
The ECI, for its part, has defended the SIR as both necessary and procedurally sound. Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, speaking for the ECI, told the court that “99% of the enumeration forms have been distributed in the state and much of the work is already over.” He dismissed claims of widespread problems, suggesting that it was “political parties and leaders who are creating a scare.” According to The Hindu, the ECI further asserted its “inherent power to determine the correctness of entries in Form 6,” the application for voter registration, and rejected the notion that it should act as a mere “post office” accepting all submissions uncritically.
Nevertheless, the SIR has encountered logistical and human challenges on the ground. There are disturbing reports—particularly from West Bengal—of booth-level officers (BLOs) facing immense pressure during the enumeration process, with some allegedly having died by suicide and others hospitalized. Petitioners argued that BLOs are being pressurized, and after the last date for submitting forms, there are restrictions on uploading them digitally, further complicating the process.
The legal debate has also delved into the scope of the ECI’s authority under the Representation of the People Act (ROPA). On November 27, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the ECI’s power to conduct SIR is limited to individual constituencies, not to mass revisions across entire states. The Supreme Court, however, countered that the fact such a revision has never been conducted before “cannot be used to question the Election Commission’s decision to carry out the exercise in multiple states.”
Amid these disputes, the Kerala government sought a postponement of the SIR due to the imminent local body elections on December 9 and 11, 2025, warning of an “administrative impasse” given the need for about 176,000 election personnel and 68,000 security staff. The Supreme Court acknowledged the urgency and scheduled hearings for Kerala on December 2, Tamil Nadu on December 4, and West Bengal on December 9. The ECI and relevant state governments were directed to file their responses by December 1, 2025.
Sibal and other petitioners have repeatedly warned that the SIR, as currently implemented, could impose an unconstitutional burden on voters—especially those who are less literate or live in remote areas—by making it difficult to contest deletions or navigate the paperwork. “The exercise affects democracy at its core,” Sibal maintained, underscoring the far-reaching implications of the revision process.
Despite these concerns, the Supreme Court has thus far upheld the ECI’s authority to proceed, provided that adequate safeguards and fair processes are in place. The bench has indicated that any bona fide citizen who has been wrongly excluded should come forward, and that the court is prepared to intervene if a significant number of legitimate voters are found to have been disenfranchised.
As the SIR process moves forward in Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and West Bengal, all eyes are on the Supreme Court’s next steps. The stakes could hardly be higher: at issue is not just the technical accuracy of electoral rolls, but the very inclusiveness and fairness of India’s democratic process. The outcome of these hearings will set important precedents for how the country balances electoral integrity with the fundamental rights of its citizens.
