SC issues notice to ECI over plea for intensive electoral roll revision in Assam
The Supreme Court issued a notice to the Election Commission on a petition challenging its decision to conduct only a Special Revision of Assam’s electoral rolls. The petitioner argued that Assam requires a Special Intensive Revision due to its demographic sensitivities
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice to the Election Commission of India (ECI) on a writ petition challenging the poll panel’s decision to conduct only a “Special Revision” of the electoral rolls in Assam, instead of undertaking a more rigorous “Special Intensive Revision” (SIR) ahead of the 2026 Assembly elections.
A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi sought the ECI’s response and posted the matter for further hearing next Tuesday.
The petition, filed by senior advocate and former Gauhati High Court Bar Association President Mrinal Kumar Choudhury, argued that Assam has been “singled out” for a diluted revision exercise, even though the ECI had earlier informed the apex court that SIR would be conducted pan-India.
Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate Vijay Hansaria termed the ECI’s approach “arbitrary and discriminatory”.
“Assam has been singled out. Nothing is required in Assam. No document required,” Hansaria submitted, referring to the fact that under the Special Revision process, electors are not required to furnish any proof of citizenship, age, or residence, unlike in an SIR, where electors must submit supporting documents along with their enumeration forms.
The senior counsel relied on the Supreme Court’s observations in multiple judgments, including the Constitution Bench verdict in In Re: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, which recognised large-scale demographic changes in Assam due to infiltration.
He pressed for an immediate stay on the ongoing revision process in Assam. However, the CJI-led bench remarked that the ECI might have adopted a different approach for Assam “because of the special laws applicable in the state, the constitution of foreigners’ tribunals, etc”.
“They might have done it so. Might be,” said the apex court, declining to pass interim orders without hearing the ECI.
According to the petition, while Bihar was the first to undergo Special Intensive Revision(SIR) beginning June 24, 2025 — during which a significant number of ineligible voters were removed, twelve other states and Union Territories, including Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Goa, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep and Puducherry, are currently undergoing the same stringent process.
The petitioner has referred to the ECI’s own orders and affidavits, including its June 24 directive stating that the “Special Intensive Revision” was intended to be conducted across the entire country to ensure the integrity of electoral rolls.
The petition further noted that in its July 21 affidavit filed before the top court, the ECI reiterated its intent to conduct SIR nationwide. However, on November 17, the poll body issued a separate order directing that Assam would undergo only a “Special Revision”, under which Block Level Officers merely verify details of existing voters during house-to-house visits without requiring submission of documents or cross-verification with the last intensive revision undertaken in 2005.
“No reason has been furnished by the ECI for conducting only a Special Revision in Assam, whereas Special Intensive Revision has been carried out in Bihar and is being carried out in twelve other states,” the petition stated, adding that Assam’s demographic profile and history of infiltration make it a state where an intensive revision is constitutionally necessary.
The matter will be heard next week after the ECI files its response.
