The Election Commission of India told the Supreme Court that US court judgments cannot be blindly relied upon, questioning due process in recent American actions cited by petitioners. Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi argued that India’s constitutional framework on electoral roll revision cannot be compared with US practices while defending the SIR exercise.
During the hearing of a batch of petitions challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, the Election Commission of India strongly questioned the petitioners’ reliance on judgments of United States courts and referred to recent global political developments involving the United States.
The submissions were made by Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the ECI, while rebutting arguments that relied on U.S. court rulings to challenge the legality of the SIR process in India.
ALSO READ: US Judge Stays Trump Administration’s Ban on Foreign Students at Harvard University
“US court judgments have been cited.. where is US following due procedure of law.. President Trump can just pick President of Venezuela for trial. Where is the due process and now he wants Greenland also. Here the petitioners want to import that here,”
Dwivedi referred to developments involving U.S. President Donald Trump and Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, along with statements related to Greenland, to argue that U.S. practices on due process cannot be blindly relied upon while interpreting Indian constitutional law.
“President Trump can just pick President of Venezuela for trial. Where is the due process and now he wants Greenland also.”
The matter is being heard by a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. The petitions challenge the ECI’s decision to conduct SIR of electoral rolls across several States.
Last year, the ECI had ordered a Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar. This decision was challenged through multiple petitions, including those filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms and the National Federation for Indian Women, which questioned the legality and fairness of the process. However, the ECI went ahead with the SIR in Bihar since the Supreme Court did not stay the exercise.
Subsequently, on October 27, 2025, the ECI extended the SIR to other States and Union Territories, including West Bengal, Kerala, and Tamil Nadu. This expansion led to the filing of fresh petitions challenging the move.
ALSO READ: Trump Controversial Birthright Citizenship Order Blocked By Judge As ‘Unconstitutional’
On January 19, the Supreme Court issued several directions to the ECI regarding the ongoing SIR in West Bengal. On the previous day of hearing, the Court had also raised a key question — whether the ECI’s power to conduct SIR can be considered absolute and beyond judicial review.
Responding to this, Dwivedi submitted that once the ECI invokes its power under Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, the constitutional authority also has the power to decide how the revision will be carried out.
“There is no compulsion under Section 21(3) that all SIR must be of an identical nature,”
At this point, Chief Justice Surya Kant observed that accepting such an argument would effectively end the legal challenge itself.
“If 21(3) argument is accepted then the case ends. How and the manner everything will be decided by you only…”
Dwivedi further explained that SIR had not been conducted for nearly 20 years and that the present exercise was undertaken out of necessity.
“If we can deviate from rule under 21(3) then just adopting a different mode than the manual cannot be looked at with suspicion or would be beyond the powers of ECI,”
The ECI also defended the transparency of the process and said that extensive efforts were made to inform voters.
“We have sent over 5 crore SMSes as well. We have followed the process strictly,”
ALSO READ: Donald Trump Seeks Supreme Court Ruling to Challenge US Birthright Citizenship
Dwivedi further claimed that the actual individuals who were allegedly affected by the SIR had not approached the Court. Instead, he argued, the petitions were being pursued by political parties and organisations.
“Rights are being espoused as though individuals are here. I can also explain the chart of Mr Yogendra Yadav,”
The Supreme Court noted the submissions and indicated that the hearing in the matter will continue on Friday.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
