In challenge against SIR expansion, DMK flags exercise infringes voters' right to political expression

The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), Tamil Nadu’s ruling party, in a maiden challenge against the expansion of Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls to 12 States, said the exercise is replete with “arbitrariness, unreasonableness and illegalities” and infringes voters’ right to political expression.

In a point-by-point counter to the SIR exercise itself and, in particular, the manner in which it was conducted in Bihar, the DMK, through its organising secretary R.S. Bharathi, represented by senior advocates N.R. Elango and Amit Anand Tiwari, said the second phase was bound to cause “confusion, uncertainty and disenfranchisement of a significant number of voters, as seen in the State of Bihar”.

What are the various electoral forms? | Explained

“Universal adult suffrage, constitutionally guaranteed under Article 326, as the foundational basis of free and fair elections is integral to the democratic framework of the Republic. Wrongful exclusion from electoral rolls strikes at the very core of this guarantee and directly infringes Article 19(1)(a), which protects the expression of political opinion of which the freedom of voting is an essential extension,” the DMK highlighted.

Referring to the October 27 order of the Election Commission (EC) on the second phase, the party said Booth Level Officers (BLOs) are required to conduct house-to-house enumeration and provide electors with enumeration forms and later collect them. “Neither the Representation of People Act [ROPA] nor the Registration of Electors Rules mention any such forms,” the DMK pointed out.

SIR 2.0: List of documents that can be used for SIR in 12 States and UTs

In these enumeration forms, electors must fill in relevant details and have been directed not to provide any documents. The DMK said electors have to provide their eligibility by providing any of the 13 specified documents (with Aadhaar card being included on September 9 on the orders of the apex court) to prove citizenship. However, the commonly available documents such as ration cards, PAN Cards, and EPIC have been excluded as documents.

“If the voter does not provide any document, they will be required to fill a Form 6 application during the claims and objections period, that is, after the publication of the draft rolls. This means that the names of such voters will automatically be deleted from the draft rolls thus allowing the mass exclusion of voters from the electoral rolls in a completely subjective or arbitrary manner,” the party contended.

Again, the party pointed out that the Booth Level Officers (BLOs) would have to identify a probable cause — absent, shifted, death or duplication — for electors who do not return their enumeration forms, based on an enquiry made with nearby electors.

“BLOs will make recommendations to Electoral Roll Officers [EROs] for inclusion or non-inclusion of names of persons who have filled the enumeration forms from the draft electoral rolls. There are no guidelines, principles or policy on the basis of which the recommendations are to be provided, therefore, any assessment will be completely subjective,” the DMK flagged in court.

Though the names of the excluded voters would be accessed through the publication of the draft electoral rolls, the party argued there was no clarity on whether the non-inclusion could be appealed or if an objection could be filed against the exclusion or how the people who had filled their enumeration forms but have not been included in the draft rolls could rectify the situation.

The DMK referred to clause 5(a) of the October 27 order which pointed out that after the publication of the draft rolls, the EROs would scrutinise the eligibility of voters. The EROs would decide whether an elector’s name was to be included or not after issuing notice to voters concerned and giving them a hearing. “Here, it is relevant to note that there is no prescribed method/manner for issuance of notice or the manner in which the hearing is to be conducted,” the party noted.

The petition argued that though appeals were provided from the decision of the ERO to the District Magistrate under Section 24(a) of ROPA and a second appeal against the decision of the First Appellate Authority to the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO), the statutory right to appeal has been rendered nugatory in practice in the SIR order.

It explained that the period for filing claims and objections is from December 9 to January 8, 2026. “This overlaps with the notice phase i.e., December 9, 2025 to January 31, 2026, during which the enumeration forms and disposal of claims and objections have to be done concurrently by the EROs. The final roll is to be published on February 7, 2026. Therefore, effectively, people have been denied the statutory right of appeal from the decision of the ERO to the District Magistrate and from the decision of the District Magistrate to the CEO,” the petition submitted.

It said there was no statutory timeline given for the disposal of appeals under Section 24(a) or (b) of the ROPA. The deadline for publication of the final roll, that is, February 7, 2026 would likely be over before appeals are duly adjudicated.

“Even if a person complies with the prescribed timelines, late rejection orders and the absence of a guaranteed disposal window before final roll publication mean that wrongfully excluded electors may remain excluded for the purpose of the impending polls and the publication of the revised SIR rolls,” the petition said.

The party said the SIR timeline prescribed for Tamil Nadu coincides with a major monsoon season, followed by Christmas holidays and Pongal.