Supreme Court hearing on SIR LIVE: Tamil Nadu seeks extension of enumeration forms phase

‘Illegal immigrant’ is not a filiative or an affiliative identity. It has to be the result of a judicial application of mind by tribunals, argues advocate Shahrukh Alam. 

Mr. Alam questions the locus of the Election Commission to conduct an inquisitorial inquiry into citizenship, when the intention was not stated in the SIR notification itself.

Advocate Nizam Pasha, for petitioners’ side, refers to EC affidavit which said the Centre’s power is “limited” to inquiring into the circumstances in which Indian citizens voluntarily acquired foreign citizenship. 

He contends that EC has laid claim to a “parallel” power to the Centre to inquire into citizenship through a mere executive notification. 

The EC has laid the burden of proof on the electors. The parliamentary law requires only self-declaration from the elector for inclusion in the roll. But in SIR process, the citizen has to provide documents to prove his or her citizenship, file enumeration form, he argues.

As the hearing resumed, senior advocate Prashanto Sen, representing the petitioners, argued: ‘The exercise of power by the Election Commission to notify the SIR cannot be classified as rule-making or law-making. It cannot match the statutory authority of Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. Not every action can be elevated to the status of a rule or law.’”

Mr. Sen argues that once Section 21(3) of the ROPA is invoked, the EC cannot refer to Article 324 (power of superintendence and control of elections). Section 21(3) is a complete code in itself and covers the revision of electoral rolls.

“There is no link between what the EC wants to achieve through SIR and the methods or procedures used.”

The ECI does not have the power, explicit or implicit, to verify citizenship. The power is with the Foreigners Tribunals and the government under the Citizenship Act, argues Shadan Farast.

The bench rises for lunch.

“Existing voters benefit from the presumption that they are citizens. They cannot be removed from the voter list without a full-fledged inquiry,” said senior advocate Shadan Farasat, representing the petitioners.

He argues that the burden to disprove the place of an existing elector in the voter list is that of the State.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday pointed to the special protective laws in place in Assam addressing the region’s unique needs while hearing a petition alleging that the Election Commission of India (EC) has discriminated against the State by not conducting a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of its electoral rolls despite the alleged presence of “40 to 50 lakh illegal immigrants” even way back in 1997.

The Election Commission of India on Monday (December 8), started a duplicate voter identification process, where a new feature was added to the Booth Level Officer’s application in West Bengal to identify and verify duplicate voters. Five new electoral observers have been appointed for the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in the State to oversee the entire process. 

The Supreme Court issues a notice to the Election Commission of India and seeks a response regarding a plea raising apprehensions about disenfranchisement caused by the SIR process among religious minorities from Bangladesh, who are now settled in West Bengal and are still waiting to receive citizenship certification under the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) 2019. 

The petition by the NGO Aatmadeep states that Hindu, Christian, Jain and Buddhist “refugees” from the neighboring country are “panic-stricken.”

The Supreme Court on December 4, 2025 put the onus entirely on State governments to substitute employees unable to bear the pressure of Booth Level Officer (BLO) work, but refused to let the reported distress of the workforce “hamper” a tightly wound second phase of the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls conducted by the Election Commission across nine States and three Union Territories.

The court said States could also choose to depute additional employees to strengthen the BLOs’ ranks and reduce their work stress.

Read more here:

The CJI clarifies that the December 4 order to provide additional BLOs or replace unwilling/unhealthy BLOs by deputing others has a pan-India effect and is not restricted to Tamil Nadu alone. 

“District Electoral Officers will serve as nodal officers in adding or replacing BLOs. States must provide the personnel for BLO work,” stated the Supreme Court.

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant says the court has asked States to provide additional booth-level officers (BLOs) and to replace existing BLOs who are unwilling to work. 

Justice Bagchi states that the ECI should approach the States for personnel if needed. Any lack of cooperation from any State government gives the EC the liberty to inform us, according to Justice Bagchi. 

“The ECI has full power to seek the assistance of central forces and can do so; however, the ECI does not want to rush into that,” according to Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi.

Justice Bagchi says the BLO’s job is not sheer desk work. 

“They have to travel from house to house. They have to get details and submit reports. It is certainly not desk work,” he said.

Petitioners say that the SIR process in West Bengal has slowed and is marred by violence. Justice Bagchi notes that only a single FIR has been placed on record. 

The Chief Justice of India (CJI) states that the Election Commission (ECI) cannot allow the law to be taken hostage. 

Justice Bagchi refers to a submission made earlier by a lawyer, indicating that overworked Booth Level Officers (BLOs) are gheraoing EC offices. 

Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi points out that each polling booth has 1,200 electors, and BLOs have 37 days to cover their respective booths.

The petitioner side challenging the constitutionality of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise claimed in the Supreme Court on December 2, 2025, that the Election Commission of India has morphed into a “despot” that has transformed a “suspicion” about the purity of the electoral roll into a massive countrywide survey which may not only lead to disenfranchisement but also statelessness for many.