The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Election Commission of India to take a sympathetic view of requests seeking more time for the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Uttar Pradesh and Kerala, amid concerns over large-scale deletions and the pace of the exercise.
A bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, with Justice Joymalya Bagchi, made the observation while hearing a batch of petitions challenging the ongoing SIR process in several states. The court said the poll panel should decide on any representations for extension by keeping ground realities in mind.
The issue came up after senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for one of the petitioners, told the court that nearly 25 lakh names had been deleted from the electoral rolls in Uttar Pradesh alone. He flagged alleged anomalies in the deletions, pointing out that in some cases a husband’s name remained on the rolls while the wife’s name was removed. Sibal also noted that the deadline for the SIR exercise was fast approaching.
As per the Election Commission’s schedule, the revision of electoral rolls in Uttar Pradesh is set to conclude on December 3.
Opposing the plea, senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing the Election Commission, argued that such matters should be left to the discretion of the poll body. He told the bench that the time for the exercise had already been extended.
During the hearing, another lawyer questioned the urgency behind the process, noting that the next Uttar Pradesh assembly elections are due only in 2027. The counsel argued that despite the long gap, adequate time was not being given for a fair and inclusive revision.
Taking note of the competing submissions, the bench stopped short of issuing any direction but asked the Election Commission to consider extension requests “sympathetically” and with sensitivity to the situation on the ground.
The court also deferred the final hearing in the matter to January 6. On that date, Dwivedi is expected to begin advancing final arguments on behalf of the Election Commission.
The SIR process has been under judicial scrutiny for several weeks. On December 11, one of the petitioners had argued that the Election Commission cannot act like a “suspicious neighbour” or a “policeman” while dealing with voters. The court had then heard detailed submissions from senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, who challenged the very conceptual basis of the SIR.
Ramachandran contended that the Election Commission’s constitutional role is to facilitate and enable voting rights, not to disable them through excessive suspicion. He argued that where a statutory framework on citizenship already exists, the poll panel cannot assume the role of a “nosy parker” by directing booth level officers to treat voters with doubt.
In earlier proceedings, the bench had also posed a broader constitutional question, asking whether the Election Commission is barred from conducting inquiries in cases of doubtful citizenship, or whether such an inquisitorial exercise falls within its constitutional powers.
The matter is now set to be taken up in detail in January, when the court will hear final arguments on the legality and scope of the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.
