Advocates for groups including the Association for Democratic Reforms and People’s Union for Civil Liberties contended that the SIR demands more than a mere summary update. They argued that the exercise effectively shifts the burden onto individual voters to prove eligibility and citizenship, a significant departure from past practices. The enumeration forms used in SIR, they pointed out, have no statutory recognition under the Representation of the People Act — making the entire process arbitrary and lacking legal grounding.
Legal counsel noted that the relevant statute and rules do not authorise a comprehensive house-to-house verification using unrecognised forms; instead, the Commission may conduct only limited revisions under a narrowly defined framework. The petitioner side referenced jurisprudence from cases such as AC Jose v Sivan Pillai, which underscored that the Commission cannot override Parliament’s law through administrative fiat. They urged the judges to recognise that Article 324 of the Constitution, under which ECI operates, cannot be used to bypass statutory restrictions on electoral roll updates.
The petitioners maintained that the SIR’s methods risk disenfranchising large numbers of eligible voters — particularly in communities where documentation is weak, or where people have migrated but remain eligible. The requirement that voters produce proof of citizenship or residence, they said, places poor, migrant, or marginalised individuals at a disadvantage, undermining equal access to the ballot.
Defence arguments for the Commission rested on long-standing tradition and the breadth of powers under Article 324, coupled with a justification that demographic changes, migration and outdated rolls necessitated a comprehensive clean-up. Proponents of SIR have called it crucial to purge ghost entries, include new eligible voters, and ensure the integrity of electoral rolls ahead of major elections.
The Supreme Court is now deliberating whether the 2025 SIR roll-out is legally tenable. The bench has signalled that it is open to scrutiny of the statutory interpretation of the Representation of the People Act and whether the Commission’s exercise oversteps that mandate. An interim hearing will examine whether the enumeration forms and deletion criteria conform to the constitutional scheme and parliamentary law.
Challenges are expected to come from multiple states. Parties and civil-society groups from Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Kerala, Uttar Pradesh, Puducherry and other jurisdictions have already raised objections or filed petitions, arguing the SIR threatens to reshape electoral rolls in ways that may alter voter composition and impact electoral outcomes.