The Supreme Court on Friday (Nov 07, 2025) urgently listed detailed arguments on November 11 regarding the very legality of the Special Intensive Review (SIR) exercise, which was launched ahead of the ongoing Bihar Assembly elections on June 24 and then extended in the second phase by the Election Commission of India to 51 million voters, including 51 million voters, including 51 million voters in the states of Bengal, Nadil Kertou, Western Territory, Nadil Kertouries and 12 States. Puducherry.
Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi disposed of the case at 11:15 am on Tuesday after defense counsel Prashant Bhushan and Neha Rathi made oral submissions. The SIR case was listed earlier on November 4, but the two judges could not take it up as they were part of the Constitution Bench, which was hearing another case that day.
At the same time, a separate reference was raised in the morning before a bench headed by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai advocate Vivek Singh, appearing for the ruling Tamil Nadu Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam party, which also challenged the constitutionality of the SIR. The presiding judge told Mr. Singh that the case would come up for hearing on November 11. It is highly likely that DMK’s petition, which is fresh, will also come before Justice Kant’s court along with other pending petitions in the case.
DMK terms SIR and de facto NRC
The DMK, also represented by senior advocates NR Elango and Amit Anand Tiwari, termed the SIR as a thinly veiled, de facto National Register of Citizens (NRC) to disenfranchise thousands of voters and subvert free and fair elections and democracy in the country, which are part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
In his submission before the Kant’s Bench, Mr. Bhushan said the hearing on the SIR challenge could not wait any longer as “SIR has started and continued with some urgency across the country”. Mr. Bhushan was joined by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing as a member of parliament from West Bengal, to seek an urgent hearing.
”They are not accepting Aadhaar despite the order of this court. They said they would accept it but they don’t. They only accept other documents,” Mr. Bhushan said.
He said the case was “very, very urgent because it goes to the roots of our democracy”. Mr. Bhushan said the SIR case should be heard and heard before the petition challenging the Center’s dominant role in the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners under the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Tenure) Act, 2023, which is also listed for hearing on November 11 (Bhuscrat Client Association, Mr.DR. ADR). is a joint petitioner in both SIR and CEC law cases.
The petitioners in the SIR case challenged the absolute discretion of the Election Commission in carrying out the revision of the electoral roll.
Podcast In Focus | Pan-India SIR: What can we expect from the experience of Bihar?
The Supreme Court, in an order dated July 10, highlighted the fundamental issues raised by the petitioners challenging the Bihar SIR. It was mainly about whether the EC had “large powers to carry out the exercise”. Second, the court noted the petitioners’ objection to the “procedure and manner of conducting the SIR exercise.”
The court noted the petitioners’ argument that the SIR exercise, notified on June 24 under Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, was not only a violation of the fundamental rights of the electorate, but also a violation of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Voter Registration Rules, 1960. They “said that the SIR screening was merely misused for the purpose of dealing”.
However, past hearings in the SIR case have moved away from examining the constitutionality of the exercise to ensure that voters are not arbitrarily excluded from the electoral roll in Bihar.
Infusion transparency
Although the court did not stop the SIR exercise in Bihar, it made several early interventions to bring more transparency to the process, ordering the inclusion of Aadhaar as the 12th document and ensuring the publication of the draft voter list, among other measures.
The October 9 hearing provided the first indication that the court has more or less accepted over time that a pan-India SIR is inevitable. Addressing the EC counsel and senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, Justice Kant verbally observed that “you (EC) have decided to conduct SIR on an all-India basis, so this experience (of Bihar) would now make you wiser… The next time you implement the SIR module, what you have experienced now would also bring some improvements.”
The EC argued that it had plenary power under Article 324 to conduct the SIR.
The crucial point raised by the petitioners was whether citizenship falls within the purview of the EC when specific laws such as the Citizenship Act and the Aliens Act deal with the issue of acquisition of Indian citizenship and illegal aliens.
The EC argued that one of the basic conditions laid down in Article 326 (adult suffrage) was that a person must be an Indian citizen to be included in the electoral roll.
Published – 07 Nov 2025 11:28 IST
