SC seeks EC reply on pleas against rollout of SIR in TN, West Bengal

The Supreme Court has asked the Election Commission to respond to petitions challenging its Special Intensive Revision of voter rolls and directed High Courts to defer similar pending cases

The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought a response from the Election Commission of India (ECI) on petitions challenging its Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, and West Bengal, and directed that similar matters pending before High Courts be kept in abeyance.

 

A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said the apex court was already examining the legality of the SIR exercise across multiple states, including Bihar, and asked High Courts to defer proceedings to avoid conflicting orders. The case will be heard next on November 26.

 

The petitions were filed by several political parties and leaders, including the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), Communist Party of India (Marxist), Trinamool Congress, and the West Bengal Congress Committee.

 

 

What were the petitioners’ concerns over the SIR exercise?

 

Appearing for the DMK, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal questioned the timing of the SIR in Tamil Nadu, arguing that the November–January period coincided with the northeast monsoon, Christmas holidays, and the Pongal harvest season, when officials were engaged in relief work and voters were away from their native places.

 

Sibal also said the ECI’s October 27 directive departed from earlier instructions by allowing documents to be sought only after draft rolls were published, if required by the Electoral Registration Officer. Justice Kant noted that this appeared to correct previous procedural issues.

 

Pointing to poor digital access in rural areas, Sibal argued that uploading documents would be difficult. The Bench, however, said logistical challenges could not stall the process, adding that as a constitutional authority, the ECI must be trusted to rectify procedural lapses.

 

Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing the ECI, said the High Courts should refrain from hearing similar matters to prevent contradictory orders. The Bench accepted the submission and passed corresponding directions.

 

Advocate Balaji Srinivasan, appearing for the AIADMK, supported the SIR, calling it a necessary measure to maintain clean voter rolls. The Bench advised the party to file a separate petition if it wished to present detailed arguments.

  Petitioners from Tamil Nadu and West Bengal have also questioned the ECI’s authority to verify citizenship during the revision, contending that such powers lie exclusively with the Union government under the Citizenship Act, 1955. The DMK and CPI(M) have argued that Tamil Nadu’s rolls were already updated during the Special Summary Revision (SSR) concluded in early 2025, making a fresh revision unnecessary.

 

What did the SC say about de-duplication and data protection?

  In a connected matter, the Supreme Court indicated its approval for using de-duplication software to detect multiple entries of the same voter. The suggestion came from Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), which has sought several directions to the ECI while the SIR is underway.

 

Justice Surya Kant welcomed the proposal, observing that there was “no problem with that suggestion.” Bhushan also urged that voters be given acknowledgement slips when submitting enumeration forms, pointing out that forms were not uploaded online, leaving citizens without proof of submission.

 

ADR further sought access to the 2002 electoral rolls in a machine-readable format to help verify family data. Referring to the Court’s 2018 ruling in the Kamal Nath case, the Bench noted that there was no obligation to publish rolls in that format.

 

Justice Bagchi expressed concern over privacy and data protection, stating, “Data itself is a valuable asset, and the ECI holds it in trust.” He suggested that voter data could instead be accessed through password-protected logins on an encrypted database.

 

The Bench asked the ECI to respond to ADR’s suggestions and directed Bhushan to consider the password-protection proposal. The matter will also be taken up on November 26, along with the petitions concerning Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, and Puducherry.