‘Separation is final’: DMK rules out reconciliation with Congress
RS Bharathi's comments came in response to recent criticism from Congress leaders over DMK's performance and alliance politics.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought a response from the Election Commission of India (ECI) on petitions challenging the constitutional validity of its October 27 notification directing a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Tamil Nadu, West Bengal and several other States. The petitioners contend that the SIR violates Articles 14, 19, 21, 325, and 326 of the Constitution.
The October 27 directive initiated the second phase of the SIR across 12 States and Union Territories (UTs), including the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Chhattisgarh, Goa, Gujarat, Kerala, Lakshadweep, Madhya Pradesh, Puducherry, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal.
Advertisement
Issuing notice to the ECI, a Bench comprising Chief Justice-designate Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi granted the poll body two weeks to file its response and scheduled the hearing for November 26, 2025.
Advertisement
The Bench further directed that all similar petitions pending before various High Courts concerning the SIR including those from Bihar be kept in abeyance.
“Since this Court is seized of matters concerning the legality of SIR of electoral rolls in several States, including Bihar, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, and Puducherry, we request the jurisdictional High Courts to defer or keep in abeyance any writ proceedings filed before them challenging the validity of SIR in their respective States,” the order stated.
The Court allocated two hours for arguments on interim relief, granting one hour and fifteen minutes to the petitioners from Tamil Nadu and West Bengal and forty-five minutes to the ECI.
Detailed hearings are slated for November 26 and 27, during which the ECI will first defend the legality of the SIR, initially introduced in Bihar and later extended to 12 other States and UTs, followed by the petitioners’ submissions challenging its constitutional validity.
Alongside the Tamil Nadu and West Bengal cases, the Court also issued notice on an application filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), seeking directions to ensure transparency in the preparation of electoral rolls and compliance with the ECI’s own procedural norms. This application will also be heard on November 26, with the ECI expected to file its reply by November 24.
When advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for ADR, read out the reliefs sought, Justice Surya Kant observed, “You are seeking compliance with their (EC’s) own instructions.”
On Bhushan expressing concerns about the pace and nature of the revision process, Justice Kant remarked, “If we are satisfied, we will annul the exercise.”
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), highlighted logistical difficulties in Tamil Nadu.
“The situation in every State is different. In Tamil Nadu, heavy rains occur during November and December. BLOs will be engaged in flood relief. December and January mark the harvest season, followed by Christmas vacations. This is not a conducive time for effective participation in enumeration,” he submitted.
Responding, the Bench noted that electoral roll revisions are a regular administrative practice but reminded the ECI that it must “take into account the local conditions of each State.”
Sibal further pointed out that, unlike the current exercise, the 2002 SIR had been conducted over a significantly longer period, allowing for more comprehensive verification and public participation.
The Supreme Court is already hearing multiple petitions relating to the SIR process in Bihar and other States.
Advertisement
