23 Opposition parties write to Chief Justice of India over SIR

Twenty-three opposition parties and an independent Rajya Sabha MP jointly wrote to the Chief Justice of India, expressing concerns about the Election Commiss...

What Happened

Twenty-three opposition parties and an independent Rajya Sabha MP jointly wrote to the Chief Justice of India, expressing concerns about the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
The letter alleged that the SIR process had resulted in approximately six crore names being removed from electoral rolls nationwide, with the revision still underway in 19 states and Union Territories.
The opposition bloc reaffirmed its commitment to "SURE" (Solidarity, Unity, and Resistance for Electoral integrity), framing the SIR as arbitrary and anti-democratic.
The decision to send the letter was taken at an INDIA bloc meeting on June 8, 2026, attended by 21 parties and one independent MP.
The Supreme Court had earlier, on May 27, 2026, upheld the legal legitimacy of the SIR, finding it in consonance with the Representation of the People Act and within the Election Commission's statutory mandate.

Static Topic Bridges

Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Electoral Rolls

SIR is a time-bound, door-to-door enumeration exercise ordered by the Election Commission of India (ECI) to verify and update electoral rolls. Unlike the routine annual revision, SIR involves Booth Level Officers (BLOs) visiting households at least thrice to distribute and collect enumeration forms, cross-checking registrations against the 2003 base voter list to detect duplicates, deceased voters, non-citizens, and those who have permanently shifted.

Voters registered after 2003 whose names (or parents' names) do not appear in the 2003 base list must submit additional documents proving age, address, and parentage.
SIR is conducted in phases across states; Phase III (2026) covers 16 states and 3 Union Territories.
The Supreme Court (May 2026) held that SIR is a constitutional obligation, not a discretionary exercise.

Connection to this news: The opposition's letter challenges the scale of voter deletions under SIR, raising questions about whether due process protections are adequate when crores of voters face removal.

Article 324 and Election Commission Powers

Article 324(1) of the Constitution vests the superintendence, direction, and control of the preparation of electoral rolls and the conduct of all elections to Parliament, State Legislatures, and the offices of President and Vice-President in the Election Commission of India. In Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978), the Supreme Court held that these powers are plenary and operate in areas unoccupied by legislation.

The Chief Election Commissioner can only be removed in the manner prescribed for a Supreme Court judge — a high constitutional bar ensuring independence.
Other Election Commissioners cannot be removed without the recommendation of the Chief Election Commissioner.
The ECI conducts SIR under Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, read with the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.

Connection to this news: The opposition's petition to the Chief Justice effectively invites judicial scrutiny of whether the ECI's exercise of Article 324 powers through SIR is consistent with constitutional safeguards for the right to vote.

Representation of the People Act, 1950 — Electoral Roll Provisions

The Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1950 governs the preparation, maintenance, and revision of electoral rolls. It provides the statutory framework within which the ECI operates during roll revisions, including the grounds for inclusion and deletion of names.

Section 21 of RPA 1950 empowers the ECI to conduct intensive and summary revisions.
Intensive revision involves door-to-door enumeration; summary revision involves targeted corrections.
Deleted voters have the right to file a claim for re-inclusion, subject to verification.

Connection to this news: The controversy centres on whether the procedural safeguards under RPA 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules are being followed before deletions are made at scale.

Right to Vote as a Statutory and Constitutional Right

The right to vote in India is a statutory right created by the RPA, 1950, not a fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court has consistently held that free and fair elections are part of the basic structure of the Constitution (Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain, 1975).

A voter's name appearing on the electoral roll is a prerequisite for exercising the right to vote.
Any process that results in mass deletion without adequate notice or opportunity to respond can be challenged under Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of expression) and the broader right to political participation.
The Supreme Court's role here is to ensure the ECI acts within its statutory mandate while upholding the constitutional imperative of free and fair elections.

Connection to this news: Writing to the Chief Justice signals an intent to escalate the matter judicially, framing the mass deletions as a threat to the foundational democratic right to vote.

Key Facts & Data

23 opposition parties + 1 independent MP (Rajya Sabha) signed the letter.
Approximately 6 crore names reportedly removed from electoral rolls nationwide.
SIR Phase III (2026) covers 16 states and 3 Union Territories.
Supreme Court upheld SIR's legal validity on May 27, 2026.
SIR is conducted under Article 324 of the Constitution, Section 21 of RPA 1950, and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
Booth Level Officers (BLOs) must visit households at least three times during enumeration.
Voters registered post-2003 without a parent's name in the 2003 base list must submit fresh documentary proof.