Supreme Court Questions EC over SIR Notification; Poll Body Defends Citizenship Verification Process
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday (January 22) questioned the Election Commission of India (ECI) for failing to cite illegal immigration as a reason for its Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
The bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi raised the query after 6.5 crore names were removed from draft electoral rolls across nine states and three Union Territories. In Uttar Pradesh, 3.26 crore voters received notices to prove citizenship credentials during the second phase of the SIR.
Justice Bagchi observed that the commission had listed only "frequent migration" as a reason for the SIR, rather than illegal cross-border movement. He noted that while inter-state migration is a lawful fundamental freedom, the "illegality" aspect only applies to immigration. The court asked if the poll body was "second-guessing" the SIR notification by introducing the illegal immigration angle now.
Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, for the ECI, submitted that the term "migration" subsumes both inter-state and trans-border movement. Dwivedi argued that the 2025 SIR was an opportune time to apply the 2003 amendments to the Citizenship Act, which require both parents of an elector to be Indian citizens. He stated that the revision was authorised under Article 324 of the constitution.
On Wednesday, the court remarked that while the ECI possesses wide discretion, its power is not "untrammelled." Justice Bagchi pointed to Rule 25 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, which mandates that intensive revisions follow prescribed procedures. The court questioned why the ECI increased the number of required documents from six to 11 and initially excluded the Aadhaar card.
In an affidavit concerning West Bengal, the ECI reported "logical discrepancies" that it stated "defy science." The poll body found 4,59,054 instances where electors were linked to more than five children. These included cases of individuals allegedly having over 200 children and a 50-year age gap between parents and offspring. Dwivedi submitted that such cases merited greater scrutiny.
The ECI denied allegations by petitioners, including Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Dola Sen, that the exercise targeted minorities. It clarified that the exclusion of 58 lakh voters in West Bengal was due to death, permanent shifting, or duplication, rather than software-based deletions.
Earlier, the court expressed concern over the "stress and strain" caused to the public in West Bengal, where 1.36 crore people – nearly 20% of the population – received notices. Justice Bagchi questioned the "logical discrepancy" criteria, such as a 15-year age gap between parent and child, noting the prevalence of child marriage.
Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Shyam Divan, for the petitioners, submitted that the ECI lacked statutory sanction for such profiling. Sibal argued that only 500 venues were available for 1.36 crore hearings, creating a logistical hurdle before the final publication of the rolls.
To mitigate public hardship, the court ordered that lists of those flagged for discrepancies be displayed at gram panchayat bhavans and ward offices. It extended the deadline for filing objections by 10 days and directed the ECI to accept statutory documents, such as school board admit cards, as proof. The bench also ordered that Booth Level Agents be permitted to assist applicants during verification to ensure transparency.
The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
