Supreme Court Slams Election Commission's "Mechanical" Approach to Electors' Issues

The Supreme Court criticised the Election Commission of India for repetitive, non-specific replies during a hearing on the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, amid concerns over migrant voters, pending forms, and safety of booth level officers. The court examined deadlines, digitisation figures, and enforcement of protections for BLOs across states.

The Supreme Court on December 9, 2025, sharply criticised the Election Commission of India for giving "mechanical and cyclostyled" replies when voters flagged difficulties with the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said the court kept hearing stock answers, instead of practical solutions, during repeated hearings.

The bench was dealing with multiple applications linked to the ongoing Special Intensive Revision, including demands for more time in Tamil Nadu and Kerala and complaints about pressure and violence against booth-level officers. The judges questioned both the Election Commission and State governments on their handling of voters and field staff.

Supreme Court Election Commission SIR: migrant voters and pending forms data

The immediate trigger was a plea to extend the deadline for enumeration forms in Tamil Nadu, which was scheduled to end on December 11. Applicants pointed out that many residents in hilly regions were migrant workers who travelled for the annual Sabarimala pilgrimage and would not return before Pongal in mid-January.

In response, the Election Commission filed a brief statement saying, "99.27% enumeration forms were received and digitised in Tamil Nadu." Another applicant, however, told the court that 56 lakh people in the State still had not submitted their enumeration forms, raising concerns about exclusion of absent voters during the Special Intensive Revision.

Chief Justice Surya Kant expressed displeasure with the pattern of such replies. "For you, it is 90% and 97% every time a practical difficulty is raised in this court. Your answers are always mechanical and cyclostyled," the Chief Justice told the Election Commission, suggesting that aggregate percentages were not resolving specific voter problems.

Supreme Court Election Commission SIR: Kerala extension plea and digitisation figures

The hearing also covered Kerala, where the government, represented by advocate C.K. Sasi, asked for two more weeks for electors to file enumeration forms. The court was informed that over 20 lakh voters there had still not submitted forms, despite an earlier extension of the deadline from December 11 to December 18.

Senior advocate P.V. Surendranath highlighted the difficulties for those outside Kerala. "There are students who are studying outside the State. On a personal front, there are also lawyers like me. We are waiting for the Christmas vacations to go back and submit our forms," P.V. Surendranath said, pointing to seasonal travel patterns.

The Election Commission again relied on high completion figures, stating that 97.42% enumeration forms in Kerala had been digitised. Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the Election Commission, said the Kerala government’s estimate of pending forms was "speculative" and claimed the poll authority had its "fingers on the pulse" in the State, adding, "We are monitoring," during the hearing.

Supreme Court Election Commission SIR: workload and stress on BLOs

Beyond voter deadlines, the bench focused on the pressure faced by booth-level officers who carry out door-to-door work for the Special Intensive Revision. Justice Joymalya Bagchi asked whether the Election Commission had become "too much of a driving force", resulting in exhaustion among these frontline staff across several States.

The Election Commission rejected that concern as a "political narrative floating around". It argued that each polling booth typically had around 1,200 voters and the booth-level officer had 37 days to collect and submit forms. According to Rakesh Dwivedi, "A BLO can cover them all in 37 days at the pace of 35 voters a day… There are small hamlets in some places. A BLO could easily visit six or seven houses and complete the daily quota," suggesting the workload was manageable.

Justice Bagchi said this calculation treated the assignment as though it were "desk work". "It is sheer leg work. They have to leg it house after house, verify the details, travel back and upload the enumeration forms. There is pressure on the BLOs… We are not on 'narratives', as you put it… We had taken note of strain on BLOs in our order on December 4," Justice Bagchi reminded the Election Commission counsel during the exchange.

Supreme Court Election Commission SIR: violence, political interference and protection

Concerns over physical safety also came up, with an application alleging that booth-level officers in West Bengal faced targeted attacks intended to slow the Special Intensive Revision. The bench noted that these officials were effectively acting on behalf of the Election Commission while on duty and required robust institutional protection.

Chief Justice Surya Kant stressed this duty, telling the Election Commission, "BLOs are now performing your statutory duties. For the time being, they are your employees. BLOs have to be protected by you and the State concerned," and asked why available powers had not been used more decisively when violence was reported.

For the Election Commission, Rakesh Dwivedi argued that stress was more linked to local politics than to institutional pressure. He said ruling parties in States opposed to the Special Intensive Revision, such as West Bengal and Kerala, were "bossing them around". "In Kerala, the Congress party has said the CPI(M) is putting pressure on the BLOs… Stress is coming more from the political parties," Dwivedi submitted, shifting responsibility towards State-level rivals.

Dwivedi also outlined formal options to secure officials. "If the State fails, the EC could take the local police under deputation. If the local police act foul, the poll body is empowered to rope in Central forces," he said, but the bench replied that merely listing powers was not enough. "Why have you not exercised this power? This [violence perpetrated against BLOs] is a very serious issue. The BLOs are working for you," Chief Justice Surya Kant said, adding that the Election Commission should act, not just cite legal authority.

Dwivedi responded that the Election Commission could not "jump to" conclusions about each allegation without verification. He assured the court, "We will do the necessary. We will take strong action to protect the BLOs," while maintaining that States must also cooperate to prevent intimidation or attacks during the Special Intensive Revision process.

The Supreme Court made clear that its order of December 4, placing responsibility on States to replace sick booth-level officers or assign extra staff, would apply across India. The bench adjourned the matter to December 18, 2025, saying it would review fresh data on form submission and field conditions before deciding whether further directions on the Special Intensive Revision were needed.