In a hearing that moved at an unhurried but tense pace, the Supreme Court on Thursday hinted that it will tread carefully while examining the challenges to the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The bench, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, repeatedly reminded the parties that SIR was not meant to become a yearly ritual. “We cannot interfere too much and keep suggesting,” the bench observed, adding softly, “They’re doing it after nearly twenty years.”
Background
The petitions-filed from Tamil Nadu, Puducherry and several other regions-question the legality and rationale behind the ECI’s decision to conduct SIR across nine states and three Union Territories. Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the Commission’s reasons were neither consistent nor logically tied to the grounds cited, such as rapid urbanisation and migration.
Read also:- Patna High Court Strikes Down Punishment on Sub-Inspector After Finding 'Deemed Guilt Rule' Unconstitutional, Says Disciplinary Action Was Prejudged
He insisted that removing a name from the voter list was no small matter. “Deletion of names is effectively a suspension of citizenship,” he told the court, warning that Booth Level Officers (BLOs) were being allowed to doubt a voter’s identity without any clear guidelines.
Court’s Observations
The bench and counsel often slipped into examples, almost conversationally. Justice Joymalya Bagchi remarked, “The word migration does not have a solely domestic import,” suggesting the term could include a wide range of population movement. The CJI jumped in with a real-life illustration of farm labourers in Punjab-many settled for decades yet retaining ties to their home states.
Ramachandran pushed back, saying the reasons given for Bihar could not be lazily extended to distant regions like Lakshadweep or the Andaman Islands. He termed the ECI’s reasoning “a facile, easy and lazy assumption”.
Read also:- Himachal Pradesh High Court Quashes 2003 Assault Case After Parties Reach Peaceful Settlement
At one point, the CJI recalled his own visit to Havelock Island: “Most residents there were migrants from Punjab, Bihar, West Bengal,” he said, signalling that population shifts must be understood contextually, not rigidly.
But the bench remained equally firm that the Court must avoid over-policing election processes. “SIR cannot become a procedural modality,” the CJI said. “If we start micro-managing, it becomes an annual feature-this is not desirable.”
Read also:- Supreme Court Steps In After 13 Years of Vegetative State: Orders Secondary Medical Board to Review
Decision
No final order was passed. The Supreme Court indicated that the issues require nuanced examination but also reiterated that judicial restraint will guide its approach. With this, the matter was posted for continued hearing next Tuesday.
Case Title: Challenges to Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Electoral Rolls
Case No.: Not specified in the order/hearing summary
Case Type: Writ Petitions challenging SIR notifications (Election Law / Constitutional Law)
Decision Date: Hearing held on Thursday (Final decision not yet delivered; next hearing scheduled for Tuesday)
