NEW DELHI: While hearing the petitions challenging the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in West Bengal and Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court on Wednesday orally remarked that it can extend the deadline for the publication of the draft electoral rolls if found necessary.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant made this oral comment when the parties appearing in the West Bengal matter raised concerns about the Court posting the case to December 9, which is the date for publication of the draft roll as per the SIR schedule.
“So what? If you make out a case, then we can direct them to extend the date. Can that date be a ground for the Court to say that we don’t have any power now? Court can always say,” CJI Kant said.
The Supreme Court continues to hear pleas challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in various States in India, on Wednesday (November 26, 2025).
Tamil Nadu and West Bengal are among the 12 States and Union Territories included in the second phase of the SIR exercise, announced on October 28. The fate of 51 crore voters is at stake.
The bench, also comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi, asked the Election Commission of India to file its counter-affidavit to the petitions relating to Tamil Nadu and West Bengal.
While the Tamil Nadu matters are posted to December 4, the WB matters are posted to December 9. The Court also posted the petitions seeking the deferment of the Kerala SIR to December 2.
Appearing for Kerala and West Bengal, senior advocate Kapil Sibal said: “A BLO (booth level officer) cannot decide whether I am a citizen or not. That is for the Union government to do, after an enquiry.”
CJI Surya Kant says there is an appeal process given in the SIR. But Sibal argues that millions of people do not have the wherewithal to file appeals.
Justice Bagchi asks if Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal sees the Election Commission as an inert post office that has to blindly accept every Form 6 (new voter) filed with it.
“There is always a power with a constitutional authority to whet documents placed before it. So, in the SIR a document — enumeration form — akin to Form 6 is being asked to be filed,” he says.
Sibal differs. He says the statute requires somebody to object and, with reasons, for EC to enquire into a registered elector’s place in the electoral roll.
Justice Bagchi said that BLOs are supposed to go home-to-home. That is why we ordered the draft lists to be made accessible, he says.
“But why even go for SIR and force people to file enumeration forms,” asks Kapil Sibal.
Justice Bagchi said the EC has the power to conduct a survey under Section 23 of the Representation of the People Act if it has doubts about the credibility of the voter list.
Sibal says he is not arguing on the power of the EC, but the procedure, which is exclusionary.
“Any exclusion of a name from the electoral roll must follow a process that is reasonable,” said Kapil Sibal.
“The nature of revision of the electoral rolls must be inclusionary, not exclusionary. Aadhaar card is proof of date of birth and not citizenship. It is statutorily recognised,” he said.
TAMIL NADU SIR
SIR in Tamil Nadu has been challenged by political party DMK (Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam) (through Secretary RS Bharati), Communist Party of India (Marxist) (through Secretary P Shanmugham), actor Vijay’s TVK, Thol Thirumavalavan MP, State MLAs K Selvaperunthagai and T Velmurugan, CPI leader M Veerapandian and politician Thamimum Ansari.
The AIADMK, on the other hand, has filed an application supporting the SIR. According to DMK’s petition, a Special Summary Revision (SSR) had already been conducted in Tamil Nadu between October 2024 and January 6, 2025, during which the electoral roll was updated to reflect changes such as migration, deaths and deletion of ineligible voters.
The revised roll was published on January 6, 2025, and has been continuously updated since then. Despite this, ECI has notified a fresh SIR, introducing new guidelines that impose citizenship verification requirements, especially for those whose names were not on the 2003 electoral roll. The DMK warns that through the SIR, ECI has “claimed the power to assess the citizenship of individuals,” a power that rests solely with the Union Government under the Citizenship Act, 1955. By imposing documentation requirements akin to a citizenship test, the SIR allegedly transforms the ECI into a “de facto National Register of Citizens (NRC)”, it says.
The application filed by All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK), supporting SIR in Tamil Nadu, calls it a legitimate and necessary exercise to uphold the sanctity of elections and prevent voter fraud.
West Bengal SIR
The special intensive revision of electoral rolls in West Bengal has been challenged by Trinamool Congress MP Dola Sen, and Subhankar Sarkar & Mostari Banu of West Bengal Congress Committee.
Puducherry SIR
The special intensive revision exercise in Puducherry has been challenged by R Siva, leader of the Opposition in Puducherry Legislative Assembly.
BIHAR SIR
The CJI refers to the apprehensions raised by petitioners in the Bihar SIR, but the elections took place, and the deletions from the electoral roll were mostly not objected to, he said.
Justice Bagchi says the EC decided to conduct an aggressive revision. “There are deletions from the electoral roll. But the deletions hardly had any impact on the ground or evinced any objections,” he said.
The CJI says the court was “looking for” citizens who have been deleted, but there were hardlywho any made their way to this court.
A bunch of petitions were filed before the Supreme Court challenging legality of the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision of Bihar electoral rolls. The petitioners alleged large-scale exclusions and irregularities in the conduct of SIR. They also questioned the ECI’s power to conduct the special intensive revision.
Over a course of time, the Court issued several directions, including allowing the use of Aadhaar card as one of the documents for inclusion in the voters’ list and directing publication of details of excluded voters. On October 16, the matter was adjourned after noting ECI’s submission that it was in the process of publishing the final list of voters in Bihar.
During that hearing, Advocate Prashant Bhushan urged the bench to direct the Election Commission to publish the names added and deleted in the final list of voters. However, the bench said it would wait to see what the poll body publishes and expressed confidence that the Commission would fulfil its responsibility.
