The Supreme Court of India has recently directed the Election Commission of India to address significant discrepancies and transparency concerns in the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
The Court’s intervention follows reports of anomalies in voter counts in Uttar Pradesh and the exclusion of names from draft rolls in Kerala, as well as policy decisions affecting voter verification in West Bengal.
According to The Hindu, the Supreme Court on 15 January 2026 asked the Election Commission to explain a discrepancy highlighted by Barabanki MP Tanuj Punia. The MP submitted that the number of rural voters in Uttar Pradesh, as per the State Election Commission’s SIR, exceeded the total number of voters in the state as recorded by the Election Commission of India’s SIR. The Court noted that these figures could not logically coexist and requested the Commission to clarify which count was accurate and the basis for the figures.
In the same hearing, Deccan Herald reported that the Supreme Court directed the Election Commission to publish the names of voters deleted from the draft electoral rolls in Kerala. The Court also suggested extending the deadline for filing objections by those excluded, in order to ensure that affected individuals have a fair opportunity to contest their removal from the rolls.
Midway through the proceedings, coverage revealed that the Election Commission of India declined a proposal from West Bengal’s chief electoral officer to accept Class 10 admit cards as valid documents for voter verification during the SIR process. The Commission stated that the admit card does not appear in the list of admissible documents prescribed for the revision, and reaffirmed its October 2025 instructions regarding acceptable identification.
The Court’s directions in the Kerala case were prompted by petitions from the state government and political leaders, who argued that nearly 24 lakh names had been deleted from the draft rolls and that the lack of public access to the list of deleted names hindered the ability of voters to file objections. The bench instructed that the names of excluded persons be displayed at gram panchayat offices and uploaded on the official website for wider accessibility as details emerged.
“The Election Commission must clarify which SIR is correct, and on what basis, since both cannot be right,” senior advocate Salman Khurshid submitted to the Supreme Court, as noted in the proceedings.
At the start of the SIR in West Bengal, reporting indicated that the Commission’s refusal to accept the Class 10 admit card was formally communicated to state authorities, reinforcing the need for strict adherence to the prescribed list of documents for voter verification.
In the Uttar Pradesh matter, the Supreme Court’s bench, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, also considered requests to extend the deadline for objections in Kerala, reflecting ongoing judicial oversight of the electoral roll revision process following reports.
Petitioners in Kerala further argued that technical errors and a lack of a robust redressal mechanism risked disenfranchising a significant segment of the population. The Court’s instructions to make the list of deleted names publicly accessible were intended to address these concerns and ensure transparency in the revision process at the conclusion of the hearing.
“They have to list objections, but the list of those persons deleted is not available. Now people have to go back and file objections stating why have you deleted me...that opportunity is missing for us,” a lawyer for the petitioners stated before the Supreme Court.
These developments underscore the Supreme Court’s active role in ensuring the integrity and transparency of the electoral process, as well as the Election Commission’s responsibility to address discrepancies and facilitate fair participation for all eligible voters as analysis showed.
Note: This article is produced using AI-assisted tools and is based on publicly available information. It has been reviewed by The Quint's editorial team before publishing.