SC grills EC on Assam’s relaxed voter roll rules, seeks clarification on verification exemption

The top court sought responses from the Centre and the ECI for the next hearing on December 17.

The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to explain why Assam was exempted from providing documentary proof during the ongoing electoral roll revision, an obligation imposed on voters in several other states under the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice to the ECI on a PIL filed by advocate Mrinal Kumar Choudhury, who questioned the poll body’s November 17 notification that mandated only a “Special Revision” in Assam ahead of the 2026 Assembly elections, stated a report by Live Law.

Unlike SIR, a Special Revision does not require voters to submit documents proving citizenship, age, or residence.

Senior advocate Vijay Hansaria, appearing for the petitioner, argued that Assam, despite its documented history of illegal immigration, had been “singled out” for a less rigorous verification process. He also pointed to earlier Supreme Court observations on large-scale infiltration and referenced official assessments, including the 1997 report by then Assam Governor SK Sinha and statements of former Union Home Minister Indrajit Gupta estimating 40-50 lakh illegal immigrants in the state.

“In other states, SIR is mandatory. In Assam, nothing is required, no enumeration forms, no documents. The ECI has not placed any justification on record,” Hansaria submitted. He sought an immediate stay on the revision exercise.

The CJI, while noting that Assam may have “special laws” and mechanisms like Foreigners Tribunals, declined to grant a stay without hearing the poll body. The top court directed the ECI to file its response by December 16.

According to the petition, states such as Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal, and Union Territories including Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep and Puducherry, are currently undergoing Special Intensive Revision. The plea argues that “there is no difference in ground realities” that justifies a deviation for Assam.

In a separate but related matter, the bench also heard a PIL seeking interim voting rights for an estimated 50,000 members of persecuted minority communities from neighbouring countries who have applied for citizenship under the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) in West Bengal.

Senior advocate Karuna Nundy told the court that the applications had been pending for years, risking disenfranchisement in the upcoming Assembly elections, reported Live Law.

The bench was, however, categorical that voting rights cannot be granted without citizenship.

“The right to vote will arise only after citizenship is conferred. Granting interim voting rights would not be legal,” the CJI noted.

The top court, nonetheless, stated it may ask the Centre to expedite scrutiny of pending applications. It sought responses from the Centre and the ECI for the next hearing on December 17.

The Attorney General or Solicitor General has been requested to assist the court in both matters.