‘ECI’s SIR order for 9 States and 3 UTs is a ‘Copy-Paste’ of the Bihar notification’, Tamil Nadu tells Supreme Court

THE SUPREME COURT ON THURSDAY was told that The Election Commission of India’s (‘ECI’) order released on October 27, 2025, for Special Intensive Revision of the electoral rolls in nine State and three Union Territories was a copy and paste of the July 24, 2025, Bihar SIR order. The order, it was argued, was without “demonstratable application of mind”, with the Commission acting as a “suspicious policeman” over the voters. 

Raju Ramachandran: ECI’s order disabling the right to vote

Stating that the October 27 ECI order for SIR in nine States and three Union Territories was a reproduction of the July 24, order of Bihar SIR, Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran told the bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi that the task of the Election Commission was to act as an “enabler” of the voters to be included in the electoral rolls and participate in democratic process. However, in reality, it was acting as a “disabler”.

“The manner in which the Election Commission of India is attempting to conduct a Special Intensive Revision, [it] … , is disabling the right to vote and excluding electors,” Ramachandran, who appeared for the Tamil Nadu government, argued, “This militates against the Constitutional role assigned to the ECI to protect the right to vote under Article 326, and the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (‘RP Act’) –  Section 16 and Section 19.”

Raju Ramachandran: Justification for the SIR did not involve a "surprise situation”

The reasoning for the SIR in nine States and three UTs, the government had noted, was rapid urbanisation and migration. As a result, it had noted, certain voters were appearing at electoral rolls at more than one place. However, Ramachandran argued that this could not be justification for the intensive revision as it did not involve any “surprise situation” warranting under the exercise underway.  He argued that ECI could not take recourse to its reserve power under Article 324 for determining the citizenship of a voter as this area was already occupied by an existing statutory regime.

“When there is a statutory scheme to deal with the suspected citizens, what is the authority of the EC to usurp the power and suspend the citizenship?”, Ramachandran questioned, adding that “Article 324 is a reserve power to deal with surprise situations and not overthrow the statutory and constitutional shackles.”

The Election Commission has no power to “suspect the citizenship of a citizen and suspend the citizenship”, Ramachandran claimed, wondering “Can the EC play a vigilante role?.”

Referring to the observations from the bench regarding whether EC has any inquisitive role of going into the citizenship of a voter, Ramachandran said, “My answer is ‘No’. EC must start with a position of trust and not the suspicion of a policeman.”