Today, On 2nd December, Snr. Adv. Singhvi tells the Supreme Court that no one in 75 years has attempted an exercise like SIR, arguing that the ECI’s sweeping Special Intensive Revision violates the RP Act, lacks constituency-specific reasons, and exceeds constitutional limits.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court is today examining multiple legal challenges to the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls, an exercise central to maintaining the integrity and inclusiveness of India’s democratic process.
The matter was taken up before the Court, with senior advocate Dr AM Singhvi presenting arguments against the manner in which the ECI is conducting the revision.
Dr Singhvi told the Court,
“Before June we had one set of documents, after June we have another and nothing stops them from bringing in another document system next year. These are new mechanisms in a field already occupied by parliamentary law, and Article 324 cannot override what Parliament has enacted under Article 327. If you look at Section 21(3) of the RP Act, the very structure shows it is meant for a constituency or part of it so any cannot suddenly mean all.”
He added,
“Otherwise the reference to a constituency or part thereof becomes meaningless. The requirement of reasons to be recorded also rules out an en masse exercise. And the proviso makes it clear that SIR is meant for special occasions, not a blanket revision across several constituencies.”
Dr Singhvi further explained,
“My last point is related to 21 (1) that it can be done by a prescribed manner which is given in Rule 25.”
He strongly criticized the ECI’s reliance on general factors like migration, saying,
“They rely on migration and a supposed constitutional obligation, but reasons must be constituency specific and individualised, not generic. Here, they rely on broad reasons like rapid urbanisation and frequent migration, which have been ongoing for over ten years such grounds cannot justify Section 21(3). Frequent migration is equally vague and does not meet the statutory threshold. Section 21(3) must be read with Section 21(1) and Rule 25, which limits the power to constituency wise action.”
Dr Singhvi highlighted historical precedent,
“Extraordinary circumstances may allow a special revision, like the only historical instance in Thakurdwara, Uttar Pradesh, where deletions and additions were carefully verified and justified. What is happening now mass deletions and additions across entire states is not a special revision but an intensive revision, done without proper procedure, causal nexus, or individualisation. Nobody in seventy five years has attempted this scale of classification. The Election Commission’s approach is innovative, but it is using powers in a way that the law does not intend or permit.”
He added a sharp observation about the novelty of the exercise,
“No one in 75 years has attempted this. If I must give a left handed compliment to the ECI, this is a new creation by them left handed or right handed, that’s for them to decide. On Article 14 the classification has no reasonable nexus with the objectives it claims to achieve. Even after 2003, there’s still no nexus.”
Dr Singhvi also criticized the ECI for overstepping its powers regarding citizenship verification,
“On the citizenship test the ECI has no power under Article 324 to conduct a citizenship test. It has acted ultra vires the Constitution not only violating the statutory process but also undermining the NRC process established by Parliament. Here, it presumptively places me on a temporary citizenship list and then requires me to prove I am a citizen.”
Singhvi contended that the Election Commission of India (ECI) lacks the authority under Article 324 of the Constitution to conduct a citizenship test by implementing arbitrary procedures in election guidelines.
The senior counsel asserted that the ECI has essentially established a parallel system for determining citizenship through the electoral process.
He stated,
“Determination of citizenship lies exclusively with the Central government under Sections 8 and 9 of the Citizenship Act or with the courts and Foreigners Tribunals. By requiring EROs to scrutinise citizenship documents, mark suspected non-citizens and report them to the Home Department, the Election Commission has acted ultra vires the Constitution and the Citizenship Act. It has effectively created a parallel mechanism of citizenship determination through the electoral process. This breaches statutory limits and raises concerns of indirect NRC without parliamentary sanction,”
Additionally, Singhvi remarked that the “ECI is effectively placing individuals on a temporary citizenship list.”
He noted,
“That is my language, but it captures the effect. The original list becomes a presumptive temporary list. Second, I have to prove that I am a citizen. The burden is reversed. They file an objection against me and I am forced into an adjudication. This is very serious. The Election Commission has arrogated to itself a power it does not have. It has created a presumption. It has shifted the burden,”
With these arguments, Dr Singhvi concluded his submission before the Supreme Court, leaving the Court to examine the legality and constitutional validity of the Election Commission’s ambitious Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.
The Election Commission of India (ECI), On 24 June 2025, started a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls in Bihar before the Assembly elections. Under this process, voters were asked to provide updated documents, but many citizens did not have them.
Opposition parties and several NGOs criticised this move, saying it could deprive a large number of genuine voters of their right to vote. They approached the Supreme Court (SC), calling the ECI’s action arbitrary and against the Constitution.
The Commission, On 1 August 2025, released the draft electoral roll, which showed a total of 7.24 crore registered voters. At the same time, around 65 lakh names were removed from the list.
Petitioners, including the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), requested the Supreme Court to order the ECI to make public the full list of voters whose names were dropped, along with the reasons for each deletion. They said that without such transparency, many citizens might lose their right to vote without being given a fair chance to object.
Read Live Coverage