Today, On 26th November, The Supreme Court on Kerala SIR clarified that the Election Commission is not a post office to blindly accept every voter form. The Court stressed that each inclusion must follow a reasonable and fair process.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court hearing several petitions challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls ordered by the Election Commission of India (ECI) in multiple States.
One of the petitions was filed by the Kerala government, seeking to defer the SIR at least until after the upcoming local body elections. Earlier, On November 21, the Court had issued notice to the ECI regarding this plea.
Other petitions have been filed by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPI(M)], the Communist Party of India (CPI), and Indian Union Muslim League leader PK Kunhalikutty. These petitions challenge the SIR itself and do not merely seek deferment of the process.
Today, the Court listed petitions concerning the SIR in Bihar, Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal.
Following the Bihar exercise, the ECI announced the SIR in over 10 States as part of the first phase, with plans to conduct the exercise nationwide. The ECI emphasized that the SIR is necessary to ensure that only eligible citizens remain on the electoral rolls.
The matter is being heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.
CJI Surya Kant stated,
“Tamil Nadu SIR matter will be on Monday. Kerala SIR issue is for deferment of SIR since local body elections are on.”
Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi informed the Court,
“Plea was first before HC. State Election Commission had said they are not facing any issues. ECI and SEC are coordinating. 99 percent voters have got forms, more than 50 percent are digitised.”
CJI Kant directed,
“File separate status report for Kerala SIR.”
During the Supreme Court hearing on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran emphasized the urgency of the Tamil Nadu matter, stating, Tamil Nadu issue is important. Cut off date is December 4.
Responding, Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi suggested, Have it on 5th November. Ramachandran immediately countered, it is too late, highlighting the need for timely action in the electoral process.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal noted,
“BLAs are allowed to upload 50 forms.”
Rakesh Dwivedi stated,
“These political parties are creating a scare.”
Sibal clarified,
“No, this is on instructions by ECI. These are your instructions and cannot be about a political party or leader.”
Advocate Prashant Bhushan raised concerns,
“The SIR process is being conducted in great hurry. Many BLOs are committing suicide and there are reports about it. In Assam, there is no requirement about enumeration forms and different than rest of India… Please hear our IA.. We are relying on the own manual of ECI.”
CJI instructed,
“ECI states that counter affidavit shall be filed on or before December 1. Let the soft copy be served to all the counsels appearing in the case of SIR in Tamil Nadu. Let reply to the same be filed on or before December 3. List the matter on December 4.”
He further added regarding Kerala,
“Let ECI file the counter in Kerala SIR case by Monday. Let reply be filed by December 1. List the case on December 2, 2025.”
Dwivedi requested,
“Let the Kerala State election commission also file a reply.”
CJI responded,
“Let counter be filed by SEC by December 1.”
The matter of West Bengal SIR was mentioned.
CJI directed,
“Let counter in West Bengal SIR matter be filed over the weekend. ECI says 2 more IAs have been filed in the case. He needs time. Counter to be filed along with reply to IA be filed by December 1, 2025. List the matter on November 10, 2025.”
He added,
“WB State election commission also at liberty to file reply by December 1,2025. List West Bengal matter on December 9.”
CJI said,
“We can also have the final hearing. Let us start it today. We can start at 2 pm and let us know how much time you require on both sides to complete arguments.”
Dwivedi requested,
“Can we have the final hearing after we have filed counter…SIR is the same.”
CJI Kant responded,
“Let us begin.. it is the Bihar case.”
Senior Advocate Aryama Sundaram noted,
“Method is different but the challenge to constitutionality is the same.”
Dwivedi mentioned,
“I have congestion issues.”
Sibal added,
“Yes, at our age we are breathing this obnoxious air.. the AQI…”
CJI Surya Kant said,
“Yesterday, I went for a walk for an hour. I was not feeling well… if I take any decision, we will take the Bar into confidence first. We will send hardship faced by the Bar.. if we see a proposal we will do something. I will meet office bearers in the evening and take some steps.”
Dwivedi said,
“Especially the ones above 60.”
Sibal remarked,
“Judges are above that (age) right.”
CJI affirmed,
“We will keep that in mind.”
Sibal emphasized,
“This is matter which affects democracy.”
He further submitted,
“Filling up of enumeration forms is not the responsibility of the elector. So many are illiterate and do not know how to read and write and if they cannot fill forms and they will be ousted..These are pure constitutional issues and this is not decided then what. Forget the procedure. Remember poorn swaraj. Delete my name – delete it – but with reason.”
Sibal explained,
“That I am a resident and more than 18 (years of age) will reflect in my electoral roll unless I change residence. For that, form 8 is filled. Any exclusion must follow a process, which is reasonable and fair. A self declaration under form 6 is also accepted as proof of citizenship, because it is inclusionary in nature.”
Sibal submitted,
“Under the law, burden can never be on the elector for documentation….”
CJI clarified,
“So you say once your name is in the electoral roll. it is a valid entry. If someone disputes it, then they have to prove it.”
Sibal added,
“The process of getting this data cannot be completed in two months.”
CJI observed,
“We saw a very strange thing in Bihar. We kept on seeing, directing etc.. but then we sent our para legal volunteers whom they reached out to…”
Sibal responded,
“See the reality of my country.. do u think in the far removed areas of West Bengal or Bihar know how to fill enumeration forms?”
CJI replied,
“Free legal volunteers are there.”
Sibal said,
“But there are crores of electors. So many went to vote and saw that their name is not there. Where do they go from there?”
Sibal added,
“There is a presumption. I have an Aadhaar. That is my residence. You want to take it away.. Take it away by a process and let the process be proven before this court.”
Justice Bagchi noted,
“List of dead and deceased was put up not only on the website but also panchayat offices, etc.”
Sibal said,
“This (kind of) SIR has never been done in this country.”
CJI responded,
“’Never been done in this country’ cannot be a parameter to adjudicate constitutional validity of an exercise.”
Justice Bagchi said,
“You are (saying) SIR across the country is hasty and is exclusionary.”
Sibal the remarked,
“Yes, the procedure shifts the burden on the citizen.”
Justice Bagchi said,
“Look at form 6.. it is a form which is filled for inclusion.. but does that mean ECI has to accept it as it is? If not, then they have an inherent power to determine the correctness of entry in form 6.”
Justice Bagchi asked,
“You are saying ECI is a post office which must accept the form 6 submitted and include your name.”
Sibal replied,
“Prima facie, yes. Unless there is some contrary material.”
Justice Bagchi noted,
“ECI will always have this inherent constitutional jurisdiction to determine the correctness of the documents etc.”
Justice Bagchi observed,
“Aadhaar card does not confer absolute proof of citizenship.. that is why we said it will be one of the documents among the list… If any one is deleted they will have to be given a notice of deletion.”
CJI explained,
“Aadhaar card is a creation of a statute to the extent which governs distribution of benefits etc. but just because a person has Aadhaar for availing some social welfare benefits…. Suppose someone belongs to a neighbouring country. Someone working as a labourer at a construction site etc and you give Aadhaar for availing ration etc. It is a part of our constitutional ethos. But just because he was given that, should he be made a voter also now?”
CJI said,
“For Bihar SIR, media reports were there everyday. So everyone knew voter list is out and bring prepare etc. In this, can one say that they have no idea as to what is happening.”
Justice Bagchi responded,
“We do not judge in vacuum and that is why dead voters had to be weeded out.”
Advocate Prashant Bhushan submitted,
“On the issue of citizenship…. Assam SIR says something significant. It says that election officers can determine someone’s citizenship.. if someone’s citizenship is doubtful it has to be reported to the central government..”
CJI Kant explained,
“There is some background to this. Assam is the only State which has foreigner tribunals..in a judgment I had stated that all three to four statutes need to be read together.. such tribunals are under a special statute.”
Sibal submitted,
“Citizenship, unsound mind etc has to be decided by another Authority and not the BLO. BLO has no right to get into this.”
He added,
“This entire exercise is erroneous and unconstitutional.”
Advocate Vrinda Grover said,
“I will address if the ECI has the power to conduct this if at all.”
The hearing is scheduled to continue tomorrow.
Read Live Coverage