DMK, CPI(M) creating narratives on Tamil Nadu SIR to serve political interests: ECI tells Supreme Court
Election Commission of India's decision to conduct an SIR in Tamil Nadu has been termed by the petitioners as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional.
The Election Commission of India has told the Supreme Court that the petitions filed by Communist Party of India (Marxist) and Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Tamil Nadu are aimed at creating narratives to serve vested political interests.
"...96.65% of the existing electors have been supplied with pre-filled Enumeration Forms, and 58.70% Enumeration Forms have been received for the State of Tamil Nadu. These numbers demonstrate that the claims of the Petitioner regarding errors in implementation of SIR, under-inclusiveness and mass disenfranchisement are highly exaggerated, and are being advanced as a narrative for digital/print/social media to serve vested political interests", the Supreme Court has been told by way of an affidavit filed by ECI.
Court has further been informed that appropriate directions have also been given to the CEO/DEO/ERO/BLO to ensure that special care is taken to ensure that genuine electors, particularly old, sick, PwO, poor and other vulnerable groups are not harassed.
ECI has further stated that to ensure that the SIR exercise is conducted in a seamless manner and with optimal efficiency, as regards the State of Tamil Nadu, it has appointed 68,470 BLOs. Moreover, recognized National and State Political Parties have appointed more than 2,38,853 BLAs to provide assistance to the process and maintain oversight.
Last month, CPI(M) and DMK had approached the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Tamil Nadu.
The petition filed by Secretary of the CPI(M) Tamil Nadu State Committee, P. Shanmugam, seeks to quash the ECI's order dated 27 October 2025, which has mandated completion of the SIR exercise within a month. Court has been told that he SIR has no statutory basis and amounts to a “colourable exercise of power” by the Election Commission. The petition asserts that while Article 324 gives the ECI powers of superintendence, it cannot override the legislative framework laid down under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (ROPA) and the 1960 Rules.
DMK has argued that the SIR orders based on the order and guidelines issued on 24.06.2025 of the Election Commission of India if not set aside, can arbitrarily and without due process disenfranchise lakhs of voters from electing their representatives, thereby disrupting free and fair elections and democracy in the country, which are part of the basic structure of the Constitution, Supreme Court has been told.
Filed by RS Bharathi, Organizing Secretary of DMK, the petition argued that the timeline for the SIR is also unrealistic and arbitrary with Booth Level Officers having to conduct house to house enumeration, being required to repeatedly follow up with persons not available, help people fill up their forms, and make recommendations over a span of two months. Court has also been informed that a Special Summary Revision (SSR) was conducted in the State of Tamil Nadu between October 2024 to January 6, 2025 which addressed issues such as migration, death and deletion of ineligible voters and the existing electoral roll in Tamil Nadu was updated and published on January 6, 2025 under Special Summary Revision and has been continuously updated since then.
"The documentation requirements of the directive, lack of due process as well as the unreasonably short timeline for the said Special Intensive Revision of Electoral Roll in the State of Tamil Nadu further make this exercise bound to result in removal of names of lakhs of genuine voters from electoral rolls leading to their disenfranchisement", the petition adds.
The order of ECI dated October 27, 2025 has directed for an SIR to be conducted in various States and Union Territories such as the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Chhattisgarh, Goa, Gujarat, Kerala, Lakshadweep, Madhya Pradesh, Puducherry, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal and the State of Tamil Nadu.
Case Title: RS Bharathi vs. Election Commission of India