The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned the Election Commission of India (ECI) over its justification for carrying out a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, after millions of names were removed from draft voter lists across several states and Union Territories.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi sought an explanation from the poll body on why “illegal immigration” was being cited as a reason for the revision when it did not figure in the official SIR notification.
The court’s observations came after around 6.5 crore names were removed from draft electoral rolls across nine states and three Union Territories. In Uttar Pradesh alone, about 3.26 crore voters were reportedly issued notices during the second phase of the revision process, asking them to establish their citizenship credentials.
Justice Bagchi pointed out that the Election Commission had mentioned only “frequent migration” as the basis for the exercise and not illegal cross border movement. He observed that migration within India is a lawful activity protected as a fundamental right, while the term “illegality” would apply only to immigration from outside the country.
The court further questioned whether the poll body was effectively changing the basis of its own notification by now introducing the argument of illegal immigration. “Are you second-guessing your own SIR notification?” Justice Bagchi asked.
Appearing for the Election Commission, senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi submitted that the word “migration” covered both inter-State movement and cross-border movement. He argued that the revision process was an appropriate occasion to implement the 2003 amendments to the Citizenship Act, which require verification of the citizenship status of both parents of a voter.
Dwivedi also told the court that the 2025 Special Intensive Revision was carried out under the authority of Article 324 of the Constitution, which empowers the Election Commission to supervise and control elections.
The bench, however, remained unconvinced by the shift in reasoning and indicated that the scope and purpose of the SIR exercise must remain consistent with what was officially notified. The court said it would continue to examine whether the removal of such a large number of names and the demand for citizenship proof was legally justified.
The matter is expected to be taken up again after further submissions from the Election Commission and affected parties.
