THE SUPREME COURT ON THURSDAY was told that The Election Commission of India’s (‘ECI’) order released on October 27, 2025, for Special Intensive Revision of the electoral rolls in nine State and three Union Territories was a copy and paste of the July 24, 2025, Bihar SIR order. The order, it was argued, was without “demonstratable application of mind”, with the Commission acting as a “suspicious policeman” over the voters.
Raju Ramachandran: ECI’s order disabling the right to vote
Stating that the October 27 ECI order for SIR in nine States and three Union Territories was a reproduction of the July 24, order of Bihar SIR, Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran told the bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi that the task of the Election Commission was to act as an “enabler” of the voters to be included in the electoral rolls and participate in democratic process. However, in reality, it was acting as a “disabler”.
“The manner in which the Election Commission of India is attempting to conduct a Special Intensive Revision, [it] … , is disabling the right to vote and excluding electors,” Ramachandran, who appeared for the Tamil Nadu government, argued, “This militates against the Constitutional role assigned to the ECI to protect the right to vote under Article 326, and the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (‘RP Act’) – Section 16 and Section 19.”
Raju Ramachandran: Justification for the SIR did not involve a "surprise situation”
The reasoning for the SIR in nine States and three UTs, the government had noted, was rapid urbanisation and migration. As a result, it had noted, certain voters were appearing at electoral rolls at more than one place. However, Ramachandran argued that this could not be justification for the intensive revision as it did not involve any “surprise situation” warranting under the exercise underway. He argued that ECI could not take recourse to its reserve power under Article 324 for determining the citizenship of a voter as this area was already occupied by an existing statutory regime.
“When there is a statutory scheme to deal with the suspected citizens, what is the authority of the EC to usurp the power and suspend the citizenship?”, Ramachandran questioned, adding that “Article 324 is a reserve power to deal with surprise situations and not overthrow the statutory and constitutional shackles.”
The Election Commission has no power to “suspect the citizenship of a citizen and suspend the citizenship”, Ramachandra claimed, wondering “Can the EC play a vigilante role?.”
Referring to the observations from the bench regarding whether EC has any inquisitive role of going into the citizenship of a voter, Ramachandra said, “My answer is ‘No’. EC must start with a position of trust and not the suspicion of a policeman.”
Raju Ramachandran: Can Section 21(3) of RP Act extend to 9 states and 3 Union Territories?
Ramachandran’s interpretation of the ECI’s October 27 order focussed upon intra country migration. Pointing this out, Justice Bagchi noted that the same discussion could be extended to inter-country migration into India from other countries as well. Ramachandran clarified that he was not contesting the ECI’s claim that urbanisation and resultant migration were occurring on account of education and search for livelihood. His contention was that the focus upon border migration as the reasoning for the ECI’s July 24 order was an “extra-charitable” interpretation.
“Illegal immigration is a well-known expression in social and political circles but the July 24 order was [focussed on] intra-country migration”, Ramachandran said.
Section 21(3) of the RP Act, which notes,
“Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), the Election Commission may at any time, for reasons to be recorded, direct a special revision of the electoral roll for any constituency or part of a constituency in such manner as it may think fit:”
Referring to this, Ramachandran said that the exercise of this power “can extend to more than one constituency or many or even to a full state as well, but can we stretch it to nine States and three Union Territories?”.
He questioned the way EC was going about the exercise in a hurry, even in States like Chhattisgarh, where assembly elections are due in December 2028.. He noted that the ECI’s extending the reasoning of urbanisation and migration for applying an SIR in Bihar to nine other states and three Union Territories was “very facile, easy and lazy.”
At one point in the hearing, the bench wondered about the possibility that the reason for conducting the SIR may have been deliberate earlier, with the exercise having been started earlier and now extended to nine states and three Union Territories.
Justice Bagchi clarified that the question coming from them was not an expression of opinion but an exercise to get a clarity on the points being made in the course of the arguments and termed it as only a “dialectical discussion”.
The hearing will now resume on Tuesday, December 16, when Senior Advocate Rakesah Dwivedi representing the Election Commission, will advance his arguments, which, as per him, may last for three days.
