Plea in Supreme Court Accuses ECI for Skipping Assam From Intensive Electoral Roll Verification

The petition, filed through AoR Anasuya Choudhury and settled by Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria challenges the ECI’s order dated 17 November 2025 that prescribes only a Special Revision for Assam.

The petitioner argues that this contradicts the Commission’s own nationwide roadmap laid out earlier this year, as well as its affidavit before the Court in July, where it stated that Special Intensive Revision (SIR) would be undertaken across the country.

According to the petition, the ECI first issued an order on 24 June 2025 directing Special Intensive Revision in Bihar, citing its constitutional duty to protect the integrity of electoral rolls. The Commission noted that intensive revisions had historically been undertaken whenever ground conditions warranted a fresh, document-based enumeration. It further declared that SIR would be carried out pan-India, with Bihar to begin first due to its upcoming assembly elections.

Subsequently, on 27 October 2025, the ECI ordered Special Intensive Revision in twelve States and Union Territories including Chhattisgarh, Goa, Gujarat, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep and Puducherry.

However, Assam was placed in a separate category and directed to undergo only a Special Revision, a far less rigorous process that does not require electors to submit documents proving citizenship, age or residence. In contrast, individuals in the twelve States undergoing Special Intensive Revision must furnish documentary proof to establish their eligibility.

The petition contends that there is “no difference in ground realities” between Assam and the States where intensive revision is underway. On the contrary, it argues that Assam’s demographic conditions make it a stronger candidate for an intensive process. Citing official reports and past Supreme Court judgments acknowledging large-scale illegal immigration from neighbouring countries, the petitioner asserts that Assam has experienced population increases at a rate “much higher than the rest of the country,” making proper cleansing of the electoral rolls indispensable.

The plea emphasises that the ECI’s power over electoral roll preparation is not absolute and must be exercised in line with factual conditions. Where substantial numbers of ineligible names are suspected to be on the rolls, intensive verification is mandatory, the petitioner argues.

The petition relies heavily on the Commission’s own statements. In its 24 June order, the ECI said intensive revision was required to protect the integrity of elections, noting past instances from 1952 to 2004 when such revisions were undertaken. It also unequivocally stated that a Special Intensive Revision “in the entire country” would follow Bihar’s process.

These assertions were reiterated in the Commission’s counter affidavit filed on 21 July 2025 in the pending batch of election-related cases. The affidavit described the June order as a pan-India directive, with Bihar merely being the starting point. It reiterated the ECI’s plenary powers and the objective of maintaining the purity of the electoral roll.

The petition claims the deviation in Assam’s case violates this publicly stated framework, undermines electoral integrity and creates unjustified exceptions without any rational basis.