SC seeks ECI’s reply on petitions challenging SIR in Bengal, other states
The Statesman | 13 November 2025
The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought a response from the Election Commission of India (ECI) on petitions questioning the constitutional validity of its 27 October notification directing the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Tamil Nadu and West Bengal, among other states.
The petitions contend that the exercise infringes Articles 14, 19, 21, 325, and 326 of the Constitution.
The 27 October order initiated the second phase of the SIR process across 12 States and Union Territories (UTs) ~ including Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Chhattisgarh, Goa, Gujarat, Kerala, Lakshadweep, Madhya Pradesh, Puducherry, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal.
While issuing notice, the apex court granted the ECI two weeks’ time to submit its response and posted the hearing for 26 November, 2025.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice-designate Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi also directed that all petitions pending before the high courts concerning the SIR in these states, as well as in Bihar, be kept in abeyance for the time being.
“Since this Court is seized of matters concerning the legality of SIR of electoral rolls in several States, including Bihar, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, and Puducherry, we request the jurisdictional high courts to defer or keep in abeyance writ proceedings, if any, filed before them challenging the validity of SIR in their respective states,” the Bench stated in its order.
The court earmarked two hours for arguments on interim relief, allotting one hour and fifteen minutes to the petitioners from Tamil Nadu and West Bengal, and forty-five minutes to the ECI.
Detailed hearings are scheduled for 26 and 27 November, during which the ECI will first present its defence justifying the legality of the SIR ~ originally launched in Bihar and later extended to 12 States and UTs ~ followed by the petitioners’ submissions contesting its constitutional validity.
Alongside the Tamil Nadu and West Bengal matters, the Court also issued notice on an application by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), which seeks directions to ensure transparency in preparing electoral rolls and adherence to the ECI’s own procedural norms. This application will also be heard on 26 November, and the ECI is expected to file its reply by 24 November.
When advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing ADR, read out the reliefs sought, Justice Surya Kant remarked, “You are seeking compliance of their (EC’s) own instructions.”
Upon Bhushan expressing apprehensions about the speed and nature of the revision process, Justice Kant observed, “If we are satisfied, we will annul the exercise.”
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), drew the Court’s attention to the logistical difficulties faced in Tamil Nadu. “The situation in every State is different. In Tamil Nadu, heavy rains occur during November and December. BLOs will also be engaged in flood relief. December and January mark the harvest season, followed by Christmas vacations. This is not a conducive time for effective participation in enumeration,” he submitted.
Responding, the Bench noted that electoral roll revisions had been a regular practice but reminded the ECI that it must “keep in mind the local conditions of each State.”
Sibal added that unlike the current exercise, the 2002 SIR had been conducted over a far longer period, allowing for more thorough verification and public involvement.
The Supreme Court is already hearing multiple petitions related to the SIR exercise in Bihar and other states.