New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the Election Commission to examine requests seeking additional time for the ongoing Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Uttar Pradesh and Kerala. The matter was raised before a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, which was informed that a large number of voters had been removed from the lists in recent months.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal told the court that approximately 25 lakh names had been deleted from the electoral rolls in Uttar Pradesh alone. He noted instances in which “the name of the husband is there and the wife is not there” and said that the revision deadline was approaching. The revision exercise in Uttar Pradesh is currently set to conclude on December 3.
Appearing for the Election Commission, senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi opposed the plea for further extension. He argued that such decisions fall within the authority of the poll panel and stated that the timeline had already been extended once. Another lawyer questioned the urgency of the process, pointing out that the Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections are scheduled for 2027 and arguing that adequate time should be provided.
After considering the submissions, the bench asked the Election Commission to take a “sympathetic” view of any representations requesting more time, while keeping practical circumstances in mind. The court also postponed to January 6 the final hearing on a group of petitions challenging the SIR process being conducted in multiple states. On that date, Dwivedi is expected to begin presenting concluding arguments on behalf of the commission.
During previous hearings, petitioners had contended that the Election Commission must not act as a “suspicious neighbour” or a “policeman” when assessing voters. Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, representing those opposing the SIR exercise, argued that the commission’s constitutional role is to support and enable voting rights. He said that adopting “the negative way of viewing one’s own role” would turn the commission into a “nosy parker” instructing booth-level officers to doubt citizens. The bench earlier asked whether an inquiry into suspected ineligibility is outside the commission’s constitutional authority.