SIR for 12 States, SR for Assam: SC Questions ECI’s ‘Selective Approach’

The Supreme Court on December 9, 2025 issued notices to the Election Commission of India (ECI) and the State of Assam, asking them to explain why a direction should not be issued to conduct a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral roll in Assam instead of the ongoing Special Revision (SR).

The notice was issued in W.P.(C) No. 1191/2025, filed by Senior Advocate Mrinal Kumar Choudhury, and argued before the Bench of the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi by Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria.

Arguments in Court

Hansaria argued that Assam faces a unique and more acute challenge of illegal immigration compared to other States, and that only a Special Intensive Revision—which requires voters to submit documents proving citizenship, age and residence—can ensure an accurate and lawful electoral roll. Under a mere Special Revision, he contended, names of ineligible and illegal immigrants may continue to remain on the voters’ list, defeating the purpose of electoral scrutiny.

He further pointed out that the ECI had earlier informed the Court, in separate proceedings, that a pan-India SIR would be undertaken. Yet, Assam had been “singled out” for a less stringent revision process.
“I don’t understand why Assam is singled out. Nothing is required in Assam. No document required,” Hansaria submitted.

Bench’s Observation

In response, CJI Surya Kant remarked that the approach may have been adopted “because of the special laws in Assam,” including the existence of Foreigners Tribunals and an evolved legal framework around citizenship and immigration.
Hansaria, however, noted that the ECI has placed no such justification on record.

The Petition

Filed by Mrinal Kumar Choudhury, former President of the Gauhati High Court Bar Association, the petition highlights that States such as Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, and Union Territories including Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, and Puducherry are currently undergoing Special Intensive Revisions, while Assam alone has been assigned a lower level of scrutiny.

According to the plea, Special Revision does not require electors to submit any supporting documents, while Special Intensive Revisionmandates documentation for inclusion. Given Assam’s longstanding concerns about large-scale illegal immigration, the petitioner argues that the State’s electoral process demands greater rigour, not less.

The petition relies on several earlier assessments and judicial observations, including:

• The 1997 report of Assam Governor Lt. Gen. S.K. Sinha,

• Statements by former Union Home Minister Indrajit Gupta, citing the presence of 40–50 lakh illegal immigrants,

• Supreme Court findings in the Sarbananda Sonowal cases, and

• References in the recent judgment concerning Section 6A of the Citizenship Act.

The plea also flags rapid demographic shifts in Assam, implying that failure to conduct a Special Intensive Revision could allow ineligible voters—including illegal immigrants—to remain on the rolls, potentially influencing the upcoming Assembly elections.

What Happens Next

The Supreme Court has listed the matter for urgent consideration on December 16, indicating that the issue may receive priority scrutiny.

While the Court has yet to express any definitive position, the notice suggests that it may be examining the possibility of directing the ECI to bring Assam in line with other States undergoing Special Intensive Revision.

If such a direction is eventually issued, it could have far-reaching implications for the State’s electoral landscape, administrative workload, and political climate.

The petition has been filed through Advocate-on-Record Ansauya Choudhury.

Also Read: 13 Muslim BLOs Removed: Congress Accuses BJP of Targeted ‘Communal Cleansing’ in Assam's Sribhumi