Challenge to the ECI’s Special Intensive Revision of Electoral Rolls

Case Description

On 24 June 2025, the Election Commission of India (ECI) announced that it will begin a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls in Bihar ahead of its state assembly elections. The exercise aims to revise the electoral rolls in the state in order to eliminate ineligible persons and include new voters.

Phase II of the SIR was announced on 27 October and conducted across nine states and three union territories (UTs). Phase III was announced on 14 May 2026 and conducted across 16 states and three UTs. As per data released in October 2026, over 13 crore names have been deleted from the rolls so far.

Multiple challenges have been filed to challenge the ECI’s conduct of the SIR in Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Kerala, Chhattisgarh, West Bengal and Delhi.

Notification announcing revision of rolls 

The notification said that the ECI would “scrupulously” adhere to Article 326 of the Constitution and Section 16 of the Representation of People Act, 1950 (RPA) which lay down criteria for eligibility and disqualification of voters.

Article 326 states that any person above the age of 18 is eligible to vote. Section 16 sets down the criteria for a person who is disqualified from being a voter. These criteria include not being a citizen of India, being of unsound mind, or being disqualified from voting under any law related to corrupt practices and other election offenses.

It stated that the SIR will be carried out in exercise of its powers under Article 324 and Section 21 of the RPA. Article 324 vests the ECI with superintendence, direction and control over elections in India. Section 21 of the RPA empowers the ECI to prepare and revise electoral rolls. Noting that this is the first intensive revision of the Bihar rolls since 2003, the ECI announced that it aims to achieve three things in the state:

1. That every eligible citizen is enrolled and no one is excluded
2. No ineligible voter remains on the rolls
3. To eliminate dead/shifted/absentee voters

The ECI has justified this intensified exercise, citing factors such as rapid urbanisation, frequent migration, the addition of newly eligible young voters, underreporting of deaths and the inclusion of names of foreign illegal immigrants.

How will it work? 

The ECI has delegated Booth Level Officers (BLOs) to conduct house-to-house verification. This will include door-to-door surveys by the BLOs who will identify eligible or non-eligible voters. It has designated Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) to print pre-filled Enumeration Forms for existing electors. The BLOs will distribute the enumeration forms and collect them with supporting documents during their visits. These forms will be available to download on the ECI website (or ECINET).

Alternatively, electors can fill out and upload these forms online along with relevant documents. To enhance transparency while maintaining voter privacy, the notification stated that the documents used for verifying eligibility will be uploaded on ECINET. They will be accessible only to authorised election officials.

Claims and objections can be filed by any elector or political party through Form 7 which has become a subject of dispute in Phase III of the SIR, after some states reported bulk submissions. These complaints will be assessed by the Assistant Electoral Registration Officers (AEROs). The final electoral roll will be published by the ERO after all claims and objections have been addressed.

This roll will be shared with recognised political parties and made publicly accessible on the websites of the ECI and the Chief Electoral Officer.

Voters marked ‘ASDD’ (absent, shifted, dead or duplicated) are deleted from the rolls, with no process for appeals. In Phase II and III, voters who challenge their deletion have been asked by BLOs to re-enter the rolls as fresh voters through Form 6.

From Phase II onwards, supporting documents were not collected during the enumeration phase. Instead, the forms were modified to ‘map’ voters to their records in the previous intensive revision. Those marked as ‘unmapped’ or flagged for a ‘logical discrepancy’ in their details are served a notice to prove their eligibility with supporting documents.

Phase II also saw deployment of the ERONET software.

Bihar SIR 

On 7 July 2025, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a batch of petitions by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and others which challenged the ECI’s power to revise electoral rolls. The petitioners argued that the identification process shifts the burden of proof onto individual citizens, requiring fresh applications and documentary evidence of citizenship by 25 July 2025. They challenged the exclusion of Aadhaar and ration cards, and criticised the short timeframe, absence of prior consultation and lack of sufficient training for BLOs.

“All within the month (of which a week has passed) when Bihar is in the midst of the monsoon and floods! So, unless the ECI has a magic wand, we should expect a withdrawal of this order, drastic changes in the list of documents allowed (as announced on June 30) or a postponement of the Bihar assembly elections,” the ADR exclaimed in its petition.  The petitions prayed for an immediate stay on the SIR.

The hearings took place for 29 days and culminated on 29 January, long after the November 2025 Assembly elections were conducted in the state. According to ECI data, the rolls were reduced by 6 per cent by the SIR, with the deletion of 47 lakh names.

On 27 May, the Court delivered its verdict and unanimously upheld the Bihar SIR exercise. The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi ruled that adopting a different procedure from routine electoral roll revisions does not make the exercise unconstitutional. It stated that measures adopted in the SIR are not manifestly excessive or disproportionate. The SIR secures the mandate of free and fair elections. While presumption of validity exists when included in an electoral roll, that presumption can be rebutted.

Uttar Pradesh, Kerala and Chhatisgarh SIR

On 21 November 2025, the Bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices S.V. Bhatti and Bagchi issued notice on a petition filed by Congress MP Tanuj Punia against the SIR in Uttar Pradesh. The petition seeks quashing of the ECI’s 27 October notification and deferment of timelines in the state while warning of the consequence of mass disenfranchisement.

It issued notice on a batch of petitions filed by the State of Kerala, the CPI(M), the Indian Union Muslim League and others, seeking postponement of the process in Kerala.

On 30 October 2026, the Court directed the ECI to take corrective measures against bulk submission of Form 7, which can be used to seek deletion of a voter from the rolls. Petitioners alleged disproportionate use of the form against specific communities. Similar allegations have been raised before the Karnataka High Court as well.

When the ECI submitted that the petitions regarding Kerala and Chhattisgarh are infructuous as the exercise has been completed in those states, counsel representing the petitions raised concerns about deleted voters.

ECI figures reveal a 13.3 per cent reduction in the U.P. rolls (with 2.05 crore names deleted),  11.8 per cent reduction in Chhattisgarh (25 lakh deletions) and a 3.2 per cent reduction in Kerala (nine lakh deletions).

West Bengal SIR

On 4 February 2026, the Court issued notice in a petition by former Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee which challenged the West Bengal SIR that had begun in November 2025. In this phase, the ECI introduced a mechanism to flag ‘logical discrepancies’ in voter details through ECINet. Flagged voters are required to produce supporting documents at a hearing before the concerned ERO.

For adjudication of ‘Logical discrepancy’ claims, the Bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Bagchi and V. Mohana proposed deployment of judicial officers from the Calcutta High Court, Jharkhand and Orissa. In March, it directed the ECI to create an appellate mechanism for deleted voters.

In April, after declining interim voting relief, the Bench invoked Article 142 to direct inclusion of voters whose appeals had been allowed by the tribunals before the cut-off dates.  Acting on directions from the Court, the ECI submitted that over 37 lakh appeals remain pending before 19 tribunals as of September and only 1 lakh have been disposed so far. Four judges have resigned from the tribunals.

West Bengal’s rolls reduced by 10.9 per cent with the deletion of 83.9 lakh names. With municipal polls scheduled for 7 December, the petitioners urged prioritisation of appeals for disenfranchised voters.

Delhi SIR

On 22 September 2026, the Court issued notice on a plea challenging notices issued to voters during the SIR in Delhi. The Bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Bagchi and Mohana directed the ECI to examine whether “additional filters” were required for LD notices.

Noting that BLOs have been directing ASDD voters to use Form 6 to re-enter the rolls as fresh voters in the absence of an appeals process, the petitioners questioned why Form 8 (for change of residence) cannot be used instead.

On 28 October, the Bench clarified that the Court had not ruled on the legality of the LD category as it was not addressed in the Bihar SIR decision and permitted only as an interim measure in West Bengal.