Kerala & UP SIR: Supreme Court Asks ECI to Consider Extending Electoral Roll Revision Deadlines

The Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a batch of petitions challenging the SIR process being undertaken in several states.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for one of the petitioners, flagged large-scale deletions from the electoral rolls, particularly in Uttar Pradesh.

Sibal informed the Court that nearly 25 lakh names had been deleted from the electoral rolls in Uttar Pradesh alone. Highlighting anomalies in the revision process, he submitted that in several cases, the name of the husband appeared on the rolls while that of the wife was missing. He further pointed out that the deadline for completing the SIR exercise was fast approaching.

As per the Election Commission’s schedule, the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Uttar Pradesh is set to conclude on December 3.

Opposing the plea, Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the Election Commission, submitted that the conduct of the SIR and the timelines involved fell squarely within the domain of the poll panel. He argued that the Court should not interfere, especially since the time period for the exercise had already been extended once.

However, one of the lawyers appearing in the matter questioned the urgency behind the process, pointing out that the Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections are due only in 2027. The counsel submitted that despite the long gap, the Election Commission was not providing adequate time to voters and officials to complete the revision exercise properly.

Taking note of the submissions, the Bench refrained from issuing any binding directions but asked the Election Commission to consider any representations seeking extension of time “sympathetically”, keeping in mind the realities on the ground.

At the same time, the Court deferred the final hearing in the batch of petitions to January 6. The Bench clarified that on the next date, senior advocate Dwivedi would commence final arguments on behalf of the Election Commission.

The petitions challenge the legality and manner of the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in various states, with petitioners alleging that the process risks disenfranchising genuine voters.

Earlier, on December 11, the Court had heard detailed submissions from Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, appearing for petitioners opposing the SIR exercise. Ramachandran had strongly criticised the approach adopted by the Election Commission, arguing that it could not assume the role of a “suspicious neighbour” or a “policeman” treating voters with inherent doubt.

Assailing the conceptual foundation of the SIR, Ramachandran contended that the Election Commission’s constitutional mandate is to act as a facilitator and enabler of the right to vote, not as a disabler. “The negative way of viewing one’s own role is that of a suspicious policeman,” he had submitted.

He further argued that when there exists a comprehensive statutory framework governing citizenship, the poll panel cannot transform itself into a “nosy parker” by directing booth level officers to cast suspicion on voters’ eligibility. According to him, such an approach undermines the presumption in favour of inclusion in electoral rolls.

During the earlier hearing, the Bench had also posed a question to counsel on whether the Election Commission is barred from conducting inquiries in cases involving doubtful citizenship, and whether an inquisitorial process falls outside the scope of its constitutional powers.