The Supreme Court on Monday, 26 October 2025, issued notice to the Election Commission of India (ECI), the Centre, the Chief Electoral Officer, and the Maharashtra government on a plea challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Maharashtra. The petition alleges large-scale deletion of voter names from the draft rolls. The court declined to grant immediate relief, including an extension of the deadline for filing claims and objections or a stay on publication of the final voters' list.

What the Bench Decided

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana posted the matter for further hearing on 5 November. The Bench was reluctant to pass an ex parte order without first hearing from the poll body, noting that the Supreme Court had previously extended SIR deadlines in other states and signalled that appropriate directions could be considered after examining the full circumstances.

The Petitioner's Allegations

The plea was filed by Arun Anandagiri, who challenged the procedure adopted for the deletion of voter names and the mechanism for seeking restoration. Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate Arvind P. Datar submitted that nearly 33 per cent of Maharashtra's approximately nine crore registered voters — amounting to around three crore people — had been struck off following publication of the draft rolls. Of these, he said, 1.22 crore voters were deleted on the ground of 'logical discrepancy'.

Datar further argued that voters whose names had been removed were being directed to submit Form 6, which is ordinarily used for fresh voter registration, even though these individuals had voted in previous elections. He contended that this requirement could expose them to allegations of making a false declaration, since Form 6 applicants must state that they have not previously been registered as voters.

The Form 6 Controversy

Referring to a recent Delhi High Court order, Datar argued that a general assurance against prosecution did not resolve the structural problem with the prescribed form. He urged the Supreme Court to direct the ECI to introduce a separate, dedicated form for voters whose names were deleted during the SIR exercise — distinct from the form meant for first-time registrants. The CJI-led Bench offered reassurance to the petitioner's counsel, stating: 'Nobody will be prosecuted.'

Revised SIR Schedule for Maharashtra

Under the revised schedule, the draft electoral roll for Maharashtra was published on 31 August. The period for filing claims and objections was extended to 26 October. The disposal of those claims and objections is scheduled to continue until 10 November, with the final electoral roll slated for publication on 16 November. Datar noted that Maharashtra does not face an imminent election requiring the list to be finalised on the current schedule, reinforcing his argument for an extension.

Legal Backdrop: SC's Earlier Ruling on SIR

The Supreme Court had previously upheld the ECI's authority to conduct the SIR exercise, ruling in its 27 May judgment that the revision was authorised under Article 324 of the Constitution read with Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. The court had also held that the process was accompanied by procedural safeguards against arbitrary exclusion, and that the ECI could examine citizenship-related questions for electoral purposes — without that amounting to a final determination of an individual's citizenship status. The fresh petition now tests whether those safeguards are being meaningfully applied on the ground.

With the next hearing set for 5 November, the ECI's response to the court's notice will be closely watched before the final rolls are published on 16 November.