Appearing for ADR, advocate Prashant Bhushan submitted that the ongoing SIR — initially launched in Bihar and subsequently extended to 12 states and UTs — runs contrary to the Commission’s own 2003 guidelines.

he Supreme Court on Thursday said that a voter’s name cannot be deleted from the electoral rolls without assigning reasons, as the court was told that the Election Commission of India (ECI) cannot undertake any form of citizenship determination while carrying out the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in 12 States and Union Territories.

“You can’t exclude a voter from the electoral roll without giving reasons,” Chief Justice Surya Kant, heading a bench with Justice Joymalya Bagchi, observed. The remark came after the petitioner NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) took the court through the ECI’s 2003 guidelines, which clearly state that Booth Level Officers (BLOs) are not empowered/authorised to determine the citizenship status of voters.

Appearing for ADR, advocate Prashant Bhushan submitted that the ongoing SIR — initially launched in Bihar and subsequently extended to 12 states and UTs — runs contrary to the Commission’s own 2003 guidelines. He argued that if there is any doubt about a voter’s citizenship, the matter can only be referred to the central government (Ministry of Home Affairs), which alone has the authority to determine citizenship.

Referring to the 2003 guidelines, Bhushan said, “The Election Commission’s own guidelines say it is not the job of the enumerator to determine citizenship. … In the event of doubt, the Electoral Registration Officer can refer the matter to the central government.” He added that the guidelines rely upon the Supreme Court’s decisions in Lal Babu Hussein (1995) and Inderjit Barua (1984) cases.

Bhushan also questioned why the ECI was not using deduplication methods based on demographic and photographic identifiers — such as name, father’s name, address, and voter photographs — which are already available on the rolls.

He cited a 2003 instance from Rajasthan, when J.M. Lyngdoh was Chief Election Commissioner, noting that a social audit conducted through Gram Sabha meetings had resulted in the deletion of seven lakh duplicate or invalid entries. “This method of verification through Gram Sabha meetings has now been abandoned,” he said.

On transparency, Bhushan pointed out that the ECI’s manual — described as the Commission’s “Bible” — requires Electoral Registration Officers to hold meetings with recognised political parties and share information with them. “No such exercise has taken place,” he told the court.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for another petitioner, questioned the “hurry” shown by the ECI in conducting the SIR. Citing Uttar Pradesh, where the next assembly election is due in 2027, he asked, “Why this urgency now?”

The court is hearing petitions filed by political parties, NGOs, and individuals challenging the legality of the SIR exercise in states, including Bihar, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, and Kerala. The petitions raise concerns about whether the exercise is consistent with constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 21, 325, and 326.

The hearing will resume on December 9.