The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned the Election Commission of India (ECI) on whether its power to conduct a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls is completely unregulated and beyond the scope of judicial review.

Key Observations by the Court

A bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi raised several serious concerns regarding the matter:

The bench noted that adding or removing names from the electoral roll directly impacts the fundamental rights of citizens. In such a scenario, the CJI questioned why the process should not strictly follow the prescribed procedure mentioned in Section 21(2) of the Representation of the People Act. Justice Bagchi clarified that "no power can be completely unregulated." He expressed that since the process must comply with Rules 4 to 13, the Commission's authority cannot be considered beyond the reach of judicial review.

Arguments by the Election Commission

Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing the Commission, presented the following points:

The Commission possesses the legal authority to conduct an SIR within the framework of the law.

However, he conceded that the process must be fair and cannot violate Article 326 of the Constitution (Right to Adult Suffrage).

What is the Background?

When the revision of electoral rolls began in Bihar, organizations including ADR (Association for Democratic Reforms) and NFIW (National Federation of Indian Women) challenged the move in court. Initially, the court did not grant a stay on the process. However, after the process was extended to several states, including West Bengal, Kerala, and Tamil Nadu, on October 27, 2025, fresh petitions were filed.

Historical Context

During the hearing, Justice Bagchi recalled the history of migration and demographic changes following the Partition of the country. Citing the example of regions like Murshidabad, he explained the necessity for continuous monitoring of electoral rolls. The hearing of this case is set to continue today (Thursday), sparking curiosity over what significant directions the court might issue.