On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard a series of petitions contesting the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) drive, with petitioners asserting that the Election Commission of India (ECI) cannot undertake citizenship determination under the guise of voter verification.
A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi resumed hearing arguments questioning whether the Commission has exceeded its mandate under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, by compelling voters to establish citizenship through the SIR framework.
Appearing for multiple petitioners, Senior Advocate A.M. Singhvi argued that the SIR operates as an indirect citizenship screening mechanism, requiring individuals already enlisted as voters to prove their nationality before electoral authorities. He maintained that such power is neither traceable to Article 324 of the Constitution nor conferred on the ECI by statute.
Singhvi submitted that citizenship can only be adjudicated by the Union under the Citizenship Act, 1955 (Sections 8 & 9) or by tribunals constituted under the Foreigners Tribunal Act, not by electoral registration officers. He warned that the present mechanism effectively mirrors an NRC-like exercise, shifting the burden unfairly onto citizens. Relying on Lal Babu Hussein v. Electoral Registration Officer, he emphasized that inclusion in the electoral roll carries a presumption of citizenship, placing the onus on an objector to prove otherwise, a principle allegedly reversed by SIR.
Singhvi further challenged the 2003 cut-off classification, arguing that mandatory proof of lineage for voters added post-2003 is arbitrary and violative of Article 14. He contended that SIR was envisaged only for limited constituency-based revision under Section 21(3) of the 1950 Act, not for sweeping state-wide verification.
Advocate Vrinda Grover placed focus on Bihar’s voter data post-SIR, stating that the number of women voters dropped from 3.70 crore in January 2025 to 3.49 crore by July 2025, reflecting a significant 6% decline. She argued that document-based scrutiny disproportionately impacts women, especially those who relocate after marriage and lack easy access to ancestral records.
Grover highlighted that only 28.8% of women in Bihar are educated till Class 10, making compliance with genealogical proof requirements practically unattainable. She submitted that the SIR regime offers no accommodation for such structural disadvantage, unlike Form-6, which provides more accessible enrolment pathways.
Representing ADR, Advocate Prashant Bhushan expressed grave concern over reports alleging that 30 Booth Level Officers died by suicide due to intense workload during the revision exercise. He questioned the urgency of imposing door-to-door enumeration obligations within constrained timelines and warned that migrant populations stand at risk of exclusion.
Bhushan criticised the non-publication of machine-readable voter lists and the absence of accessible records on additions or deletions, asserting that opacity prevents meaningful public scrutiny. He argued that the ECI must operate transparently to retain public confidence. The CJI urged counsel to remain confined to pleadings, indicating that the court would not entertain broader commentary on institutional perception.
The matter is scheduled to continue on December 4, when the Apex Court will hear further responses from the Election Commission and the Union.
Picture Source :
