ECI Asked to Clarify: Supreme Court Examines Congress MP Tanuj Punia’s Plea Against UP SIR
(Judicial Quest News Network)
New Delhi, November 21: The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice to the Election Commission of India (ECI) on a writ petition filed by Congress MP Tanuja Punia, challenging the legality of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Uttar Pradesh. A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant, SVN Bhatti, and Joymalya Bagchi passed the order, while also directing notice on connected pleas questioning similar exercises in Kerala and seeking their postponement.
The Petition
Punia, who represents Barabanki constituency in the Lok Sabha and serves as Chairman of the Scheduled Caste Department of the Uttar Pradesh Congress Committee, has assailed the ECI’s notification dated October 27 that mandated the conduct of SIR in Uttar Pradesh. He has also sought quashing of an earlier order dated June 24, which laid down the framework for the revision exercise.
“It is submitted that the SIR mandated through the Order dated 27.10.2025 alters the very basis on which electoral rolls are maintained in Uttar Pradesh. The process introduced requires every elector to reestablish eligibility through documentation that large segments of the State’s population have never possessed. These requirements have no foundation in the Representation of the People Act, 1950, which proceeds on a presumption of continuity and only permits deletion on narrowly defined grounds” The Petition Added
The petition, drawn by advocates Shariq Ahmed, Omer Hoda, and Adnan Yousuf, argues that the SIR process is ultra vires the Representation of the People Act, 1950, the Registration of Electors Rules, and violates fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, 21, 325, and 326 of the Constitution.
Grounds of Challenge
Violation of statutory framework: The RP Act, 1950 recognizes only three grounds for deletion of an elector’s name—death, cessation of ordinary residence, or disqualification under Section 16. Punia contends that the SIR introduces an entirely new basis for exclusion, namely the non-production of documentation devised by the ECI itself.
Risk of disenfranchisement: The petition warns that lakhs of genuine electors in India’s largest state could be excluded, as the process demands legacy records, parental documents, or institutional proofs that many citizens have never possessed.
Flawed design: Punia highlights that Booth Level Officers (BLOs) are empowered to record “probable cause” for exclusion, a subjective standard that could lead to arbitrary deletions.
Reliance on outdated rolls: The exercise is tied to the 2003 rolls, despite Uttar Pradesh having added nearly 4 crore new electors since then—many of whom were not born or recorded in institutional records at that time.
Impractical timelines: The petition asserts that the schedule for enumeration, draft roll publication, and disposal of claims and objections is impossible to meet in districts where large areas remain unvisited and households are engaged in harvest migration cycles or daily-wage work.
Absence of recorded reasons: Section 21(3) of the RP Act permits special revision only for reasons to be recorded. Punia argues that the ECI’s notification contains no assessment of conditions in Uttar Pradesh or explanation of how the state’s demographic scale and administrative capacity can accommodate such an intensive exercise within the prescribed time.
Constitutional Concerns
The plea underscores that the SIR undermines the presumption of continuity in electoral registration, a principle embedded in the RP Act. By shifting the burden of proof onto existing electors, the process allegedly infringes upon the constitutional guarantees of equality, freedom, and the right to vote.
“Uttar Pradesh has a population with significant rural, migrant, Scheduled Caste, OBC, EBC and minority communities, many of whom lack formal documents and have limited access to administrative channels. An exercise that rests on proof they cannot produce, within timelines they cannot meet, and through procedures they cannot access, is bound to lead to widespread exclusion.” Punia wrote in his Petition
The Larger Context
The Supreme Court’s notice comes amid growing debates over the integrity of electoral rolls and the balance between administrative verification and voter rights. Punia’s petition situates the issue within the broader concern of mass disenfranchisement, particularly of marginalized communities who lack access to legacy documentation.
