Why Exempt Assam? Petitioner Flags Discrimination in Electoral Roll Revision Before SC
(By Syed Ali Taher Abedi)
Delhi,01, December,2025: A petition has been filed before the Supreme Court challenging the Election Commission of India’s decision to undertake only a “Special Revision” of electoral rolls in Assam, instead of a “Special Intensive Revision (SIR)”—the exercise carried out in Bihar and twelve other States and Union Territories.
““Election Commission of India vide order dated 24.06.2025 directed Special Intensive Revision for the State of Bihar and thereafter vide order dated 27.10.2025 directed Special Intensive Revision in twelve States/ UTs, namely, Chhattisgarh, Goa, Gujarat, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, and Puducherry.” The petition said.
Filed by Mrinal Choudhury, former President of the Gauhati High Court Bar Association, the plea contends that the ECI’s decision is arbitrary, discriminatory, and inconsistent with its own earlier stand. The petitioner points out that in its SIR order for Bihar, as well as in its affidavit before the Supreme Court, the Commission had expressly stated that a Special Intensive Revision would be carried out across the country. Deviating from that commitment in the case of Assam, the petition argues, amounts to differential treatment without any rational basis.
The plea relies on the report of former Assam Governor Lt. Gen. S.K. Sinha and the 1997 statements made by then Union Home Minister Indrajit Gupta, asserting that lakhs of illegal immigrants presently reside in Assam and that many of their names have allegedly found their way into the existing electoral rolls. Unless an SIR is conducted, the petitioner warns, such individuals may acquire voting rights in the upcoming Assembly elections—an outcome that could have a “cascading effect on the socio-political fabric” of the State and upset its demographic balance.
“Shri Indrajit Gupta, the then Home Minister of India stated in the Parliament on 6 May, 1997 that there were 10 million illegal migrants residing in India. Quoting Home Ministry/Intelligence Bureau source, the 10 August 1998 issue of India Today has given the breakdown of these illegal migrants by States – West Bengal 5.4 million, Assam 4 million, Tripura 8 million, Bihar 0.5 million, Maharashtra 0.5 million, Rajasthan 0.5 million and Delhi 0.3 million making a total of 10.83 million.”
The petition also draws the Court’s attention to its own past observations on the adverse demographic impact of illegal immigration, particularly in Sarbananda Sonowal (I and II) and in the ongoing proceedings concerning Section 6A of the Citizenship Act. In light of these judicial concerns, the petitioner argues, a mere Special Revision is inadequate to address the complexities in Assam.
“That the Representation of the People Act, 1950 contains provision for preparation of electoral rolls for conduct of elections to the House of People and the State legislature. Section 16 of the Act provides that a person shall be disqualified for registration in an electoral roll, if he is not a citizen of India or is of unsound mind or is being disqualified from voting under any law. Under sub-section (2) of section 15, it is the duty of the Election Commission to strike off the name of any person disqualified after registration. Under section 19, a person is eligible to be registered in the electoral roll of a constituency if he is not less than 18 years of age on qualifying date and is ordinarily resident of the constituency”
Seeking to quash the ECI’s decision, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to conduct a Special Intensive Revision in Assam, on par with other States. Additionally, the plea urges the Court to direct that Aadhaar not be treated as a valid document for inclusion in the electoral rolls during the revision process.
The petition has been settled by Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria and filed through Advocate Anasuya Choudhary.
