Supreme Court of India. File
| Photo Credit: Subhashish Panigrahi
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (December 9, 2025) pointed to the special protective laws in place in Assam addressing the region’s unique needs while hearing a petition alleging that the Election Commission of India (EC) has discriminated against the State by not conducting a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of its electoral rolls despite the alleged presence of “40 to 50 lakh illegal immigrants” even way back in 1997.
A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant said it would hear next week the petition filed by Mrinal Kumar Choudhury, former President of Gauhati High Court Bar Association, questioning why revision of electoral rolls in Assam was only by way of “special revision” and not an SIR, as done in Bihar and currently underway in 12 other States and Union Territories, namely, Chhattisgarh, Goa, Gujarat, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, and Puducherry.
The petitioner relied on a report of former Assam Governor Lt. General S.K. Sinha and ex-Home Minister of Assam Indrajit Gupta in 1997 that there were “40-50 lakhs illegal immigrants” in the State. The petition asked whether the SIR’s avowed objective to protect the purity of the electoral roll did not apply to Assam.
Also read | Supreme Court hearing on SIR LIVE
Even the Supreme Court had raised the issue of adverse demographic impact in view of the presence of large illegal immigrants, especially in a case challenging Section 6A Citizenship Act.
“There are lakhs of illegal immigrants in Assam whose names have been incorporated in the electoral roll, and unless SIR is conducted these persons will get right to vote in the upcoming Assembly elections in Assam which will have a cascading effect on the socio-political scenario and result in demographic imbalance,” the petition, settled by senior advocate Vijay Hansaria and filed through advocates Anasuya Choudhary and Sneha Kalita, submitted.
The plea questioned the “discrimination” shown to Assam when there was no difference on the ground realities between Assam and the other 12 States where SIR was underway.
Under the special revision, electors were not required to submit any document in proof of their citizenship, age and residences.
“Whereas, in the case of SIR, electors are required to submit their documents as proof of their citizenship, age and residence in support of their claim to be included in the electoral roll,” Mr Hansaria submitted.
He contended that the decision to conduct only a special revision in Assam was contrary to a June 24 a decision of the EC to hold an SIR across India.
“The population of Assam has increased in a ratio much higher than the rest of the country. This is primarily for the reason that there is a large number of illegal immigrants in the State from the neighbouring countries. The Election Commission is under a constitutional mandate to revise the electoral roll. The decision whether to conduct an intensive revision or a summary revision has to be taken on the basis of ground realities. It is not the absolute discretion of the Election Commission to decide the revision of electoral roll intensively or summarily,” Mr. Hansari argued.
Published – December 09, 2025 12:46 pm IST
