3 min readNew DelhiJan 30, 2026 04:08 AM IST
First published on: Jan 30, 2026 at 04:08 AM IST
The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its order on pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls being carried out by the Election Commission of India with the petitioners contending that the “structural problems” plaguing the process is because the poll body “is trying to prepare the voters list de novo”.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan appearing for the petitioner NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) told a bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi: “The reason why this structural problem has occurred in this SIR is because in this particular SIR, they are trying to prepare the voters’ list de novo, on a clean slate so to say…There was an earlier SIR in 2003. That SIR did not seek to create a voters list de novo…”
He said, “The reason why this structural problem has arisen is because in this SIR, they have placed the onus on the voter. So, they are saying firstly, you have to fill up this enumeration form. If you don’t, you are out of the draft roll. Secondly, you have to provide these documents. If you don’t provide these documents, there is a problem.”
Pointing to a “reduction in the percentage of voters compared to the percentage of the adult population as well as the reduction in the percentage of women voters” this time, he said the “problem…has occurred precisely for this reason. If you place the onus on the voter…then many people especially those who are weaker…like women, migrant workers etc are unable to fill up the forms…,” Bhushan added.
‘Display names of TN people served notices’
The bench, meanwhile, on an application by DMK secretary R S Bharathi, asked the ECI to publish the names which the poll body had flagged for “logical discrepancies” during the SIR in Tamil Nadu.
The bench noted that about 1.16 crore persons had been served with notices citing logical discrepancies and seeking verification. It ordered that these names be displayed at the gram panchayat bhavan, public places in taluks.
The court said that those flagged in the logical discrepancy category may submit their documents/objections in person or through an authorised representative within a period of 10 days to the BLO.
Appearing for the ECI, Senior Advocate D S Naidu urged the court that it may not be asked to mention detailed reasons while putting up the names as it may have an impact on privacy.
Agreeing, the court directed that only a brief reason be mentioned.
The bench directed that adequate manpower be provided to the ECI and the state election commission. Naidu urged the court to direct the same procedure regarding publishing of names be followed in all states where SIR is being conducted.
The court accordingly said that it expected the ECI to follow the same procedure in other states as well, where SIR is underway.
The court accordingly said that it expected the ECI to follow the same procedure in other states as well, where SIR is underway. 
Share
