‘Respectfully disagree’ with Supreme Court order on SIR, says Congress

Senior Congress leader Abhishek Manu Singhvi addresses the media on a special intensive revision of electoral rolls at the party headquarters in New Delhi on May 27, 2026. | Photo credit: Sushil Kumar Verma

The Congress on Wednesday said it “respectfully disagreed” with the Supreme Court’s order upholding the legality of the special intensive review (SIR) of electoral rolls, saying the judgment “raised more questions than it answered”.

“The Supreme Court has delivered a legal verdict. We respectfully disagree with the verdict,” Congress communications chief Jairam Ramesh said in a statement released on X.

He argued that the Narendra Modi government was facing an “unprecedented wave of anger over its failure to govern” and the SIR had become an exercise in exclusion.

“…unable to face the electorate in a fair fight, it has now decided to manipulate the lists of those who can and cannot vote to tip the balance in its favour. Broadly speaking, that’s what SIR is for,” said Mr Ramesh.

He alleged that voters in Bihar and West Bengal were selectively wiped out en masse and then forced to face an appeals process “which is arbitrary and ultimately meaningless”.

Mr. Ramesh said the Election Commission of India (ECI) was in such a rush that the Supreme Court itself had to put up a “railing”.

“Wasn’t it this Supreme Court that ordered the ECI to publish the lists of deleted voters that they wished to keep secret; that made them publish the reasons for the deletion they should have done in the first place; and that it ordered Aadhar to be accepted when the ECI tried to refuse,” asked Mr. Ramesh.

He argued that the SIR process is “full of flaws and based on mala fide”, adding that legal sanction may provide prima facie legitimacy but “cannot cure malice in execution”.

Congress president and Rajya Sabha MP Abhishek Singhvi said at a press conference that the apex court itself had highlighted “loopholes, omissions, errors and shortcomings” in the ECI’s handling of the exercise, which later necessitated judicial intervention and petitions by political parties and civil society groups.

Mr. Singhvi pointed out that the court had observed that citizenship can only be determined by the competent authority, primarily the Ministry of Home Affairs, and not by the EOI. He questioned whether the court should have taken more cognizance of the fact that voters were excluded on grounds related to citizenship.

He also criticized the timeline of the SIR exercise, describing it as “too narrow and far-sighted a time period”.

Referring to revisions involving millions of voters in states like Bihar and West Bengal, he asked why the exercise could not take place “a year before the elections” instead of four to five months.

Mr Singhvi alleged that the ECI had “put the cart before the horse” by clearing names before objections were raised, adding that elections held during this period could lead to “severe disenfranchisement”.

Referring to West Bengal, where nearly 4,000 out of 6,000 appeals against voter erasure were reportedly upheld, he said such numbers raised “a big question mark over the credibility of the elections”.

Published – 27 May 2026 19:43 IST