The Supreme Court on Thursday, 16 July closed a batch of petitions challenging the Election Commission of India's (ECI) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Tamil Nadu, holding that its recent judgment upholding the identical exercise in Bihar had already settled the legal questions at issue.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana passed the order, observing that the constitutional and statutory challenges raised in the Tamil Nadu petitions were squarely covered by the earlier Bihar SIR verdict. The court, however, granted liberty to the petitioners to pursue any other remedy available under law.

What the Petitions Alleged

The petitions — including one filed by the then-ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) — challenged the poll body's 27 October order directing a Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Tamil Nadu ahead of the Assembly elections. The DMK contended that the order was arbitrary, unreasonable, and violated the Constitution.

The petitioners argued that the exercise, if permitted, would arbitrarily disenfranchise lakhs of voters and violate Articles 14, 19, 21, 325, and 326 of the Constitution, along with the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. The DMK described it as a 'colourable exercise of power', alleging that the SIR amounted to a 'de facto National Register of Citizens (NRC)' by imposing citizenship-like burdens of proof on registered voters — even though, it argued, the ECI lacked the authority to determine citizenship.

The petition also noted that Tamil Nadu had already completed a Special Summary Revision of electoral rolls in January 2025, making a fresh de novo verification unnecessary and without statutory justification.

What the Bihar Judgment Held

In its earlier Bihar SIR verdict, the CJI Surya Kant-led Bench had held that the revision exercise fell squarely within the constitutional and statutory powers of the ECI, aimed at preserving the integrity of the electoral process. The court ruled that the SIR did not violate the Representation of the People Act, 1950 or the rules framed under it, and that the ECI was empowered to undertake such a revision under Article 324 of the Constitution read with Section 21(3) of the RPA.

The apex court had observed that 'free and fair elections do not rest merely upon the mechanics of polling' but fundamentally depend upon the integrity, accuracy, and credibility of the electoral rolls. It had also rejected the argument that the SIR constituted an impermissible citizenship exercise, holding that while the ECI could conduct a limited inquiry into citizenship for electoral purposes, such scrutiny did not amount to a final determination of citizenship under the Citizenship Act.

Implications for Tamil Nadu

By applying the Bihar precedent to Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court has effectively foreclosed the primary legal route to stalling the SIR in the state. The DMK and co-petitioners retain the liberty to seek alternative remedies, though the scope of such challenges has been significantly narrowed by the Bihar ruling. This is the second major state where the apex court has declined to halt the ECI's intensive revision drive, signalling a consistent judicial stance on the poll body's powers under Article 324.

What Happens Next

With the petitions closed, the ECI's SIR process in Tamil Nadu can proceed without a court-imposed stay. Observers will watch whether the DMK or other petitioners pursue statutory appeals or approach the court on narrower grounds. The Bihar judgment now stands as a binding precedent on the scope of the ECI's electoral roll revision powers across states.