SC refuses to entertain plea for SIR of electoral rolls in poll-bound Assam

Supreme Court Rejects Plea for Stricter Voter Roll Scrutiny in Assam

In a significant ruling ahead of Assam's assembly elections, the Supreme Court has turned down a petition demanding a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the state's electoral rolls. The bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant alongside Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi, disposed of the case on Thursday, citing that the matter had become infructuous. This decision comes as the state gears up for polls, with voter lists already finalized and published on February 10, 2026. The petitioner, represented by senior advocate Vijay Hansaria, had urged the court to intervene against what they saw as the Election Commission's lenient approach to revisions in Assam compared to other states.

The core argument revolved around Assam's unique challenges with illegal immigration, a long-standing issue in the state's politics. Petitioners highlighted historical reports, including one from former Governor Lt. Gen. S.K. Sinha in 1997, estimating 40 to 50 lakh illegal immigrants in the state. They contended that without a rigorous SIR, which requires voters to submit proof of citizenship, age, and residence, ineligible individuals could sway election outcomes and disrupt the demographic balance. In contrast, the regular Special Revision used in Assam does not mandate such documentation, raising fears of undetected foreigners on the rolls. The Election Commission, through senior advocate D.S. Naidu, countered that multiple revisions had already occurred, rendering further action unnecessary.

Court Cautions Election Commission on Citizenship Determinations

During the hearing, Chief Justice Kant made a pointed observation about the limits of the Election Commission's powers. He emphasized that the body cannot unilaterally declare anyone a foreigner; such decisions rest solely with Foreigners Tribunals. This statement underscores the separation between electoral processes and citizenship adjudication, especially in Assam where the National Register of Citizens (NRC) process remains under judicial oversight. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government, noted that a formal reply was prepared but the case's timing made it moot. The court's stance reflects sensitivity to Assam's complex history, marked by events like the Assam Agitation and ongoing NRC-related litigation.

"It cannot be conducted in Assam due to previous legislative and judicial history. The issue of who is foreigner and who is not has to be seen. Election Commission cannot declare someone a foreigner unless the tribunal holds so," CJI Kant remarked.

Assam's electoral rolls have long been a flashpoint, intertwined with the state's efforts to identify and exclude illegal migrants, primarily from Bangladesh. Past Supreme Court observations in cases like Sarbananda Sonowal and disputes over Section 6A of the Citizenship Act have reinforced concerns over demographic shifts. The petitioner argued discrimination, pointing to the Commission's promises of nationwide SIR, including in Bihar, yet opting for a milder version in Assam due to NRC monitoring. Critics fear this could allow illegal residents voting rights, potentially altering poll results in a state where indigenous communities guard against outsider influence. However, the Election Commission maintained that the finalized rolls after repeated checks ensure integrity without overreach.

Implications for Assam's Upcoming Elections and Voter Trust

With assembly elections on the horizon, this ruling shifts focus back to the Election Commission's finalized lists. While petitioners worried about socio-political fallout from unchecked rolls, the court's dismissal signals trust in the completed process. Yet, it also reignites debates on balancing voter inclusion with security in sensitive regions. Opposition voices, including from parties like CPI(M), have raised alarms over similar revisions elsewhere, citing misuse of objection forms and harassment of voters, particularly minorities. In Assam, reports of mass third-party objections targeting Bengali-speaking Muslims have surfaced, though not directly tied to this plea. The decision avoids delving into these controversies, prioritizing procedural closure.

Broader questions linger on how electoral integrity is maintained amid citizenship disputes. Assam's experience highlights tensions between nationwide uniformity and state-specific needs. The Supreme Court's caution to the Election Commission serves as a reminder that voter lists must not morph into citizenship probes. As campaigns heat up, political parties are likely to emphasize these issues, with assurances of fair polls becoming central. Voter turnout and trust in the system will be key indicators of the process's success post-elections. This episode encapsulates Assam's enduring struggle with identity, migration, and democracy.

In summary, the Supreme Court dismissed the SIR plea as infructuous, affirmed the Election Commission's limits on citizenship calls, and left Assam's electoral rolls intact for the polls, amid ongoing debates on immigration and voter verification.