SC Issues Notice To ECI On Plea Against Limited Electoral Roll Revision In Assam
Pointing out that Assam had been “singled out” despite the state’s long-acknowledged concerns over illegal migration, senior advocate Hansaria submitted that unlike other states where SIR is under way, electors in Assam are not required to produce any documents while filling enumeration forms under the ongoing Special Revision
Guwahati: The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought a response from the Election Commission of India (ECI) on a petition challenging the poll body’s decision to carry out only a special revision (SR) of the electoral roll in Assam, rather than a more rigorous special intensive revision (SIR), ahead of the 2026 Assembly elections.
The petition has been filed by former Gauhati High Court Bar Association president Mrinal Kumar Choudhury.
A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi has listed the matter on December 16 after hearing senior advocate Vijay Hansaria, who appeared for the petitioner.
Pointing out that Assam had been “singled out” despite the state’s long-acknowledged concerns over illegal migration, senior advocate Hansaria submitted that unlike other states where SIR is under way, electors in Assam are not required to produce any documents while filling enumeration forms under the ongoing Special Revision.
“Nothing is required in Assam. No document required. I don’t understand why Assam is singled out,” he said, arguing that the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on the Citizenship Act as well as earlier decisions repeatedly highlighted infiltration concerns in the state.
He further pointed out that the ECI had informed the court in earlier proceedings that a pan-India special intensive revision would be conducted.
While hearing the argument, the CJI remarked that the Commission might have adopted a different approach in view of “special laws in Assam” and the structure of foreigner tribunals.
Advocate Hansaria insisted that the ECI had placed no such reasoning on record and sought a stay of the ongoing process. However, the bench declined to pass interim orders without first hearing from the Commission.
The petitioner contended that while states including Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, and several Union territories are undergoing SIR, Assam alone has been limited to SR.
The plea stated that an SR does not require electors to furnish proof of citizenship, age, or residence, whereas SIR mandates production of supporting documents for inclusion in the electoral roll. Given Assam’s history of large-scale immigration, the petitioner argued that the state needs stricter, not relaxed, verification.
The petition also cited official assessments such as the 1997 report by then Assam Governor Lt Gen SK Sinha and public statements by former Union home minister Indrajit Gupta suggesting the presence of 40–50 lakh illegal migrants in Assam, as well as Supreme Court observations on the issue in some previous rulings.
It asserted that there is “no difference on the ground realities” between Assam and other states where SIR is currently being implemented, and notes that the ECI’s June 24 order for Bihar and an affidavit filed in July in the Association for Democratic Reforms case reflected an intent to carry out SIR nationwide.
The petition also highlighted sharp demographic changes in Assam and argues that failing to conduct Special Intensive Revision will allow ineligible voters, including illegal immigrants, to remain on the rolls, potentially affecting the outcome of the upcoming Assembly elections.
