2025 was a year that had the Supreme Court occupied with one much-debated and discussed issue : Special Intensive Revision, the 'SIR'.The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi concluded its hearing in December 2025 on the arguments of petitioners who have challenged the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) initiated by the Election Commission of India (ECI) across various states.
The ECI commenced its arguments on January 6, 2026. This article sets out to unpack the concept of SIR and the legal controversy surrounding it.
What Is SIR? How Does The ECI Plan To Implement It ?
Simply put, the SIR is a process which aims to create electoral rolls from scratch. In the process, a comprehensive update and verification of the voters on the rolls is done by the ECI at grass-root level. The ECI's officials, known as Booth Level Officers (BLOs) would be carrying out house-to-house enumeration, which includes the collection of enumeration forms and intensive verification of entries.
The first announcement of SIR by the ECI was on June 24, 2025, limited only to the state of Bihar, ahead of the State Assembly Elections. Subsequently, a second phase of the SIR was announced on October 27, 2025. The second phase will commence from November 4 and covers 12 States and Union Territories for the 2025-26 cycle.
The second phase covers Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Chhattisgarh, Goa, Gujarat, Kerala, Lakshadweep, Madhya Pradesh, Puducherry, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal.
The key reasons for conducting the SIR, as stated by the ECI are “ rapid urbanization, frequent migration, young citizens becoming eligible to vote, non-reporting of deaths and inclusion of the names of foreign illegal immigrants have necessitated the conduct of an intensive revision so as to ensure integrity and preparation of error-free electoral rolls.”
Over 13 petitioners, including NGOs, leaders from various political parties and individual activists, have filed pleas challenging the SIR process. These include- the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) (lead petitioner), PUCL, Yogendra Yadav, Mahua Moitra (TMC MP), Manoj Jha (RJD MP), KC Venugopal(Congress MP), Supriya Sule (NCP SP), to name a few.
What Are The Key Constitutional & Statutory Provisions Relevant To The Issue?
Article 324 - details that the superintendence, direction and control of elections is vested in the ECI;
Article 325- mandates that no person can be excluded from the general voters' roll in any constituency purely on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or any of them;
Article 326 (which is also referenced by the ECI in SIR press release) - provides for universal adult sufferage and states: “ The elections to the House of the People and to the Legislative Assembly of every State shall be on the basis of adult suffrage; that is to say, every person who is a citizen of India and who is not less thaneighteen years of age on such date as may be fixed in that behalf by or under any law made by the appropriate Legislature and is not otherwise disqualified under this Constitution or any law made by the appropriate Legislature on the ground of non-residence, unsoundness of mind, crime or corrupt or illegal practice, shall be entitled to be registered as a voter at any such election.”
Section 21 of the Representation of People Act, 1950 - details on the preparation and revision of electoral rolls. S. 21(3) states “ Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), the Election Commission may at any time, for reasons to be recorded, direct a special revision of the electoral roll for any constituency or part of a constituency in such manner as it may think fit:
Provided that subject to the other provisions of this Act, the electoral roll for the constituency, as in force at the time of the issue of any such direction, shall continue to be in force until the completion of the special revision so directed.”
Key Arguments Raised By Petitioners Who Challenge The SIR :
Determination Of Citizenship Through SIR Not Within ECI's Mandate:
A major argument raised by the petitioners was that the SIR was an indirect 'NRC-like process', making ECI a de facto authority to verify citizenship. The petitioners argued that wherever doubts on the eligibility of the voter are raised, they have to be dealt with as per the process laid down under S.16 of the RP Act.
S. 16(1) of the Act states that a person is disqualified from the electoral roll if it is proven that (1) he is not a citizen of India; (2) he is of unsound mind or declared so; (3) he is disqualified from voting under any law relating to corrupt practises and offences related to elections.
However, by the process of SIR, the ECI creates a temporary list of voters and puts the burden on the individuals to prove through specific documents that they are citizens in order to be on the voters' list. The petitioners emphasised that the issue of determining whether a person is a citizen or not lies in the domain of the Central Government and Foreigners Tribunals through S. 8 and 9 of the Citizenship Act.
Explaining the scenario at a grassroots level, the petitioner flagged concerns over the authority given to the BLO to reconsider citizenship under Paragraph 7.7.8 of ECI's Manual on Electoral Rolls
"It is clear that if the electoral registration officer has any doubt regarding the registration of any person applying for registration or considering any such objection against a person already enrolled in an electoral roll, he should refer the case to the Union Government, Ministry of Home Affairs, for determining the issue under the Citizenship Act."
The petitioners underline that under this provision, requiring EROs to scrutinise citizenship documents, flag suspected non-citizens or report them to the Home Department is ultra vires the Constitution and creates an indirect NRC without Parliamentary sanction.
The process was also contrary to the decision of the Top Court in Lal Babu Hussein (1995) . As per the Lal Babu Hussein judgment, a person included in the voters' list is presumed to be an Indian citizen and the burden is on the objector to prove otherwise. However, in the SIR, the entire burden is reversed, and the voters are asked to prove citizenship even if they are included in the voters' list.
Aftermath Of Deletion From Rolls - Suspension Of Citizenship :
Consequent to the argument on how ECI does not have the power to determine citizenship, the petitioners went a notch further to contend that deletion of names from the rolls would cause a perilous situation of a 'suspended citizenship'.
In the event a person's voter eligibility is doubted by the BLO/ ERO and referred to the Central government, the ECI deletes the name of the voter from the rolls. The petitioners stressed that if the BLO ends up excluding the person from the electoral roll, then he will be excluded from all other government scheme benefits in the country.
It was further submitted that the Foreigners Tribunal mechanism and the Citizenship Act already provide the statutory route for determining doubtful citizenship, and any inquiry must follow the Representation of the People Act (ROPA), not independent suspicion by BLOs.
Enumeration Forms Floated In SIR Lack Statutory Recognition: