Congress MP Tanuj Punia has challenged the legality of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Uttar Pradesh, calling the process arbitrary and unconstitutional. The Supreme Court will examine his allegations during the scheduled hearing for 25 May.
The Supreme Court has scheduled the hearing of Tanuj Punia’s public interest litigation (PIL) against the Election Commission of India (ECI) for 25 May.
The case, registered as W.P.(C) No. 1129/2025, deals with issues connected to the State of Uttar Pradesh.
Earlier, The Supreme Court issued notice to the Election Commission of India (ECI) in response to a writ petition filed by Congress MP Tanuja Punia, challenging the legality of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Uttar Pradesh.
Punia who represents Barabanki in the Lok Sabha and is Chairman of the Scheduled Caste Department of the Uttar Pradesh Congress Committee contested the ECI notification dated October 27, which required the conduct of the SIR in Uttar Pradesh.
He also sought quashing of an earlier order dated June 24 that had laid down the framework for the revision exercise.
It said,
“It is submitted that the SIR mandated through the Order dated 27.10.2025 alters the very basis on which electoral rolls are maintained in Uttar Pradesh. The process introduced requires every elector to reestablish eligibility through documentation that large segments of the State’s population have never possessed. These requirements have no foundation in the Representation of the People Act, 1950, which proceeds on a presumption of continuity and only permits deletion on narrowly defined grounds”
Through the petition, prepared by advocates Shariq Ahmed, Omer Hoda, and Adnan Yousuf, Punia argues that the SIR is ultra vires the Representation of the People Act, 1950, the Registration of Electors Rules, and violates constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 19, 21, 325, and 326.
Grounds of challenge
- Punia submits that the RP Act, 1950 provides only three grounds for deletion of an elector’s name: death, cessation of ordinary residence, or disqualification under Section 16. He contends that the SIR effectively introduces a new ground for exclusion failure to produce documentation created or mandated by the ECI itself.
- The petition warns that the exercise may lead to the removal of lakhs of eligible electors. Punia says the process obliges citizens to furnish legacy records, parental documents, or institutional proofs documents that many people may never have possessed.
- He also points out that the SIR is linked to the 2003 rolls, even though Uttar Pradesh has added close to four crore new electors since then many of whom were not born or recorded in institutional documentation at the time.
- Punia highlights that Booth Level Officers (BLOs) are authorised to note “probable cause” for exclusion, a standard he characterises as subjective and capable of enabling arbitrary deletions.
- The petition argues that the schedule covering enumeration, draft roll publication, and disposal of claims and objections is impractical for districts where large areas remain unvisited and where household schedules are disrupted by harvest migration cycles and daily-wage employment.
- Punia further relies on the provision that special revision must be supported by reasons recorded under Section 21(3) of the RP Act, arguing that the ECI notification does not contain an assessment of Uttar Pradesh’s conditions, nor does it explain how the state’s administrative capacity and demographic scale can sustain such an intensive exercise within the stipulated time.
The petition claims that the SIR weakens the principle of continuity in electoral registration embedded in the RP Act, and that shifting the burden of proof onto electors within procedures they may not be able to access undermines constitutional guarantees of equality and the right to vote.
