The Supreme Court has asked the Election Commission to respond to a plea questioning why Assam received only a special revision instead of a Special Intensive Revision of its electoral rolls. The petition alleges discrimination and warns that lakhs of illegal immigrants may remain on Assam’s voter list.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday, December 9, 2025, highlighted that Assam has special protective laws designed to address the unique issues faced by the State.
The Court was hearing a petition that accused the Election Commission of India (EC) of treating Assam unfairly by not carrying out a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of its electoral rolls, even though reports had claimed the presence of “40 to 50 lakh illegal immigrants” in the State as far back as 1997.
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said the matter would be taken up again next week. The petition was filed by Mrinal Kumar Choudhury, the former President of the Gauhati High Court Bar Association.
He questioned why Assam’s electoral rolls were updated only through a “special revision” and not through an SIR, especially when States like Bihar and 12 others — Chhattisgarh, Goa, Gujarat, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, and Puducherry — were undergoing a full Special Intensive Revision process.
The petitioner relied on a 1997 report prepared by former Assam Governor Lt. General S.K. Sinha and former Assam Home Minister Indrajit Gupta, which stated that there were “40-50 lakhs illegal immigrants” living in the State.
The petition argued that if the aim of an SIR is to ensure the purity and accuracy of the electoral rolls, then that same objective should naturally apply to Assam as well.
The petition pointed out that even the Supreme Court itself had earlier raised concerns about a possible “adverse demographic impact” because of the presence of “large illegal immigrants,” especially during the hearing of a case related to Section 6A of the Citizenship Act.
The petition warned that
“there are lakhs of illegal immigrants in Assam whose names have been incorporated in the electoral roll, and unless SIR is conducted these persons will get right to vote in the upcoming Assembly elections in Assam which will have a cascading effect on the socio-political scenario and result in demographic imbalance.”
The plea argued that the Election Commission’s decision amounted to “discrimination” because Assam was being treated differently from the other 12 States even though the “ground realities” were similar.
The petitioner also claimed that under a normal “special revision,” people do not have to submit any documents to prove their citizenship, age, or place of residence.
However,
“whereas, in the case of SIR, electors are required to submit their documents as proof of their citizenship, age and residence in support of their claim to be included in the electoral roll,”
senior advocate Vijay Hansaria submitted on behalf of the petitioner.
He said that choosing only a special revision for Assam went against the Election Commission’s own national decision announced on June 24, which stated that an SIR would be conducted across India.
The petition also argued that the population of Assam had increased at a much faster rate compared to the rest of the country. According to the petitioner, this was largely because of a “large number of illegal immigrants” entering from neighbouring countries.
The argument was that the Election Commission has a constitutional duty to revise the electoral rolls thoroughly and the choice between an intensive revision and a summary revision must depend on the situation on the ground.
The petitioner argued that
“it is not the absolute discretion of the Election Commission to decide the revision of electoral roll intensively or summarily.”
The Supreme Court will hear the case again next week, and the outcome is expected to play an important role in shaping the debate around electoral integrity, citizenship verification, and demographic concerns in Assam.
Case Title:
MRINAL KUMAR CHOUDHURY v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
W.P.(C) No. 1191/2025
Read More Reports On Special Intensive Revision
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
