SIR row: Not much scope for intervention on technical procedural aspects, says SC

Noting that the Election Commission was conducting the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls after two decades, the Supreme Court on Thursday said there was limited scope for judicial intervention.

“SIR cannot be seen too much on procedural aspects. Let’s keep in mind that they (EC) are doing something after 20 years and the SIR cannot become an annual feature. That’s why we cannot intervene too much on the technical procedural aspects,” a bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said.

On behalf of petitioners challenging the SIR exercise, senior counsel Raju Ramachandran said in the current socio-political discourse the term “migrant” was often loaded and used to imply “illegal migrant” or “exodus” rather than domestic movement of people.

“Migration does not have a domestic import... It is their livelihood which drives them. We have a brain drain which is also migration,” Justice Bagchi said, citing the example of IT professionals from Kolkata taking flights to southern states for opportunities.

“In North India, trains are full of farm workers from Bihar... they are virtually auctioned and by the time they come to Punjab, they are in tears,” the CJI said, adding many such workers have settled in Punjab, their children have mixed with the local culture, yet their roots remain in Bihar or West Bengal.

“See the other side, they are entering Punjab, but the youth of Punjab for all means are migrating abroad, so they (migrants from Bihar) are filling that space,” said the bench which will resume the hearing on December 16.

The CJI cited a recent visit to Havelock Island where out of a population of 25,000, approximately 22,000 were migrants.

Contending that the poll panel cannot assume the role of a “suspicious neighbour” or a “policeman” treating voters with doubt, Ramachandran sought to assail the conceptual foundation of SIR, asserting that EC’s constitutional mandate was to act as a facilitator and enabler of voting rights.

“The negative way of viewing one’s own role is that of a disabler or that of a suspicious policeman… When there is an adequate statutory scheme regarding citizenship, the poll panel cannot become a “nosy parker” instructing booth-level officers (BLOs) to cast doubt on voters,” Ramachandran submitted.

Initiating an inquiry based on a BLO’s suspicion effectively amounts to “suspending citizenship”, he said.

“Now, how does EC view its role? Because depending on how it views its role will follow how it acts. Either it sees its role as a facilitator and enabler of the societal ideal of universal adult franchise, which would mean helping citizens to vote, proactively helping and enabling. The negative way of viewing one’s own role is that of a disabler or that of a suspicious policeman or a suspicious neighbour. So depending on how you view your own role, your sense of fairness and how you go about a particular exercise will be apparent from that,” he said.

While the right to vote may be statutory, it flowed from constitutional rights, including Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21, he said, “Removal from an electoral roll on suspicion amounts to giving a power to suspend citizenship.”

On October 27, the Election Commission announced the conduct of the second phase of the SIR exercise in 12 states and Union territories between November 2025 and February 2026.

The 12 states and Union territories where SIR exercise is being conducted are: Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, Chhattisgarh, Goa, Gujarat, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Puducherry, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal.