The Supreme Court was told on Thursday that the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls being carried out by the Election Commission of India (ECI) — first in Bihar and now across 12 States and Union Territories — is contrary to the constitutional mandate, the Representation of the People Act/Rules, and the Commission’s own manual.
Senior advocates argued that the exercise mirrors colonial-era voter lists based on exclusionary criteria such as pensioner status, tax payment, property ownership and educational qualifications.
A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was informed that the SIR was in breach of Article 324 and Article 326 of the Constitution, Section 21(2) and (3) of the Representation of the People Act, Sections 25(2) and 3 to 23 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, and the ECI’s manual. The Court was urged that the Commission “cannot exercise its inherent powers” in areas where its role and functions are already defined by statute.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal clarified that he was not questioning the ECI’s power to undertake a special revision, but only its decision to carry out a nationwide SIR simultaneously in all constituencies. Referring to Section 21(3) of the 1950 Act, he pointed out that the EC may order a special revision “for any constituency or part of a constituency,” but nowhere does the law authorise a blanket nationwide exercise of the kind being undertaken.
Responding to Justice Bagchi on whether the EC could exercise inherent power, Sibal said such powers cannot be invoked “where the field is already occupied by a law or rule.” He argued that every step taken by the Commission under the SIR is in the teeth of the constitutional and statutory mandate, including the role assigned to Booth Level Officers (BLOs). As per the ECI’s own manual, he said, a BLO has no jurisdiction to exclude a voter from the rolls on doubts about citizenship—“a decision only the Central government can take.”
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing in another petition challenging SIR, submitted that the Commission was effectively attempting to determine the citizenship of voters, “a task it is not mandated to undertake.” He argued, “The EC in the guise of SIR… was doing an entirely contrary act… reading into the law what is not there.”
Singhvi emphasised that for the first time in 75 years, the ECI was shifting the burden onto voters to produce documents, turning the SIR into a citizenship verification process. “This is a verification to decide whether I am a citizen or not,” he said, adding that the Commission was creating powers for itself by citing Article 324. “The EC can supplement a law but not supplant a law,” he argued.
Chief Justice Surya Kant asked, “Going by your argument, the EC does not have the powers of doing SIR… any process that is fair and transparent can be done?” Singhvi reiterated that Section 21(3) does not permit what is being done: “The EC is trying to fit a square into a hole.”
He summed up the ECI’s approach as treating every voter as a “temporary guest,” whose continued presence on the rolls is uncertain until the SIR concludes.
“I presumptively put you in the electoral rolls, as some kind of a temporary guest and I will decide if you will be there after the (SIR) exercise”, Singhvi told the bench summing up the EC’s approach.
Singhvi will continue arguments on Tuesday, December 2, 2025.
Following the Commission’s June 24 notification directing SIR in Bihar, several petitions were filed challenging both the constitutionality of the exercise and the procedure adopted. Petitioners — including ADR, PUCL, TMC MP Mahua Moitra, RJD MP Manoj Jha, and activist Yogendra Yadav — argue that the SIR violates Articles 14, 19, 21, 325 and 326 of the Constitution, as well as the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and Rule 21A of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
They contend that the SIR risks large-scale disenfranchisement of rural, marginalised and under-documented voters.