Supreme Court on SIRs: Where Things Stand Right Now

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has asked the Election Commission of India (ECI) to “sympathetically consider” requests to extend the deadline for submitting enumeration forms for the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Kerala and Uttar Pradesh.

However, the enumeration phase in Kerala officially concluded on Thursday, December 18, following a previous extension.

A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant issued the direction while hearing a batch of petitions challenging the constitutionality of the SIR process across several States. The court permitted the petitioners to make a representation before the poll body regarding the timeline.

“The ECI [is directed] to consider such representation sympathetically... and keeping in view all the ground realities and all the relevant factors, an appropriate decision shall be taken,” the bench, also comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi, ordered.

‘25 lakh names at risk’

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioners concerning Kerala, argued that 25 lakh names were on the verge of deletion in the state. Highlighting alleged discrepancies in the process, Sibal submitted, “Husband is there, the wife’s name is not there; they have deleted the wife’s name.”

Regarding Uttar Pradesh, senior advocate Siddharth Dave stressed the need for an extension, noting that the next assembly elections in the state are scheduled for March-April 2027. Dave submitted that there was no need for “haste” in the revision of the state’s rolls. Notably, the ECI had revised the enumeration deadline in Uttar Pradesh to December 26, with the draft rolls to be published on December 31.

Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the ECI, submitted that the commission was monitoring the situation and extending timelines where required. “It is not that if two weeks are given now, it cannot be extended further,” Dwivedi stated, adding that he required additional time to file a response on the petitions challenging the SIR process.

During the hearing, advocate Charu Mathur submitted that the engagement of volunteers for the process put citizens’ personal data at risk, citing rising instances of “digital arrest” scams. The Bench, however, declined to entertain the application, stating it would not interfere with the administrative choice of personnel at this stage.

Migration and citizenship

The hearing follows proceedings on December 11, where the court discussed the scope of the term “migration” in the SIR order. Justice Bagchi had observed that migration could include crossings into India, underscoring the ECI’s rationale for verifying citizenship.

Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, appearing for a petitioner, had argued that the ECI was assuming an “inquisitorial role” and acting like a “nosy parker” by verifying citizenship when adequate statutory mechanisms already existed. He contended that the SIR order, originally specific to Bihar, had been applied to industrialised States and those with significant migrant populations like Tamil Nadu without sufficient application of mind.

Separately, on December 9, the court clarified the position regarding the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), 2019. While hearing a plea by the NGO Aatmadeep regarding refugees in West Bengal fearing disenfranchisement, Chief Justice Kant observed that citizenship is not a given for CAA applicants. The court noted that while the Act created enforceable rights, every claim must be verified by authorities before a person can be included in the electoral roll.

The Supreme Court recorded that the ECI will make its submissions regarding the legality of the SIR on January 6, 2026.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.