SC Seeks ECI Response on Assam Electoral Roll Revision Ahead of 2026 Polls

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 conduct only a Special Revision (SR) of Assam’s electoral rolls, instead of a more comprehensive Special Intensive Revision (SIR), ahead of the 2026 Assembly elections.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi listed the matter for further hearing on December 16 after hearing senior advocate Vijay Hansaria, representing the petitioner.

Hansaria argued that Assam had been “singled out” despite longstanding concerns over illegal immigration in the state. He pointed out that unlike other states where SIR is underway, voters in Assam are not required to submit any documents while filling enumeration forms under the ongoing SR.

“Nothing is required in Assam. No documents are required. I don’t understand why Assam is being treated differently,” Hansaria told the court, referencing the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on the Citizenship Act and previous judgments that highlighted infiltration concerns in the state.

He further noted that in earlier proceedings, the ECI had informed the court of plans to carry out a pan-India SIR, making Assam’s exclusion from the process unclear.

Chief Justice Surya Kant, however, suggested that the Commission might have adopted a different approach due to Assam’s special laws and the structure of Foreigner Tribunals. Hansaria maintained that no reasoning had been placed on record by the ECI and urged the court to stay the ongoing SR process. The bench, however, refused to pass any interim orders without first hearing the Commission.

The petition, filed by former Gauhati High Court Bar Association president Mrinal Kumar Choudhury through advocate Ansauya Choudhary, contends 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 has been limited to the less stringent SR process.

The plea notes that SR does not require voters to provide proof of citizenship, age, or residence, whereas SIR mandates submission of supporting documents for electoral roll inclusion. Given Assam’s history of large-scale migration, the petitioner argued that the state needs stricter verification, not a relaxed process.

Citing 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 estimating 40–50 lakh illegal migrants in Assam, the petition underscores the need for a rigorous SIR. It also refers to Supreme Court observations on the issue in previous rulings and asserts there is “no difference on the ground realities” between Assam and other states undergoing SIR.

The ECI’s June 24 order for Bihar and a July affidavit in the Association for Democratic Reforms case reportedly reflected the poll body’s intent to carry out SIR nationwide.

Meanwhile, Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma last month welcomed the decision to conduct SR with January 1, 2026, as the qualifying date, saying the exercise would ensure “clean, updated and accurate electoral rolls” and pledged full cooperation to the ECI.

The Commission clarified that the decision to use SR instead of SIR or Special Summary Revision (SSR) was made after multiple consultations, taking into account factors including the National Register of Citizens (NRC) and the category of D-Voters—individuals whose citizenship status is under adjudication. D-Voters will remain in the draft roll without fresh verification, with changes only possible via orders from a Foreigner Tribunal or court.

The ECI also outlined key differences between SR and SIR: in SIR, voters must submit documentary proof through printed enumeration forms, whereas SR and SSR rely on pre-filled registers and standard Forms 6, 7, and 8 without mandatory document submission.

Also Read: Supreme Court to Hear PLea Seeking Inclusion of CAA Applicants, in Voter Lists