The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), Tamil Nadu’s ruling party, has taken a significant step by challenging the Election Commission of India’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise in the Supreme Court. On Monday, November 3, 2025, DMK organizing secretary R.S. Bharathi filed a petition arguing that the second phase of this SIR process, rolled out across 12 States and Union Territories, is a “constitutional overreach” – essentially a National Register of Citizens (NRC) in disguise.
Bharathi’s petition contends that by demanding proof akin to citizenship documents from voters, the SIR oversteps its legal mandate and operates as a de facto NRC. He warned that if the October 27 SIR order isn’t overturned, the process could arbitrarily strip millions of citizens of their voting rights without due process. This, he emphasized, would fundamentally undermine free and fair elections and the very democratic structure of the nation, both considered essential components of the Constitution.
This lawsuit marks the first direct challenge in the Supreme Court against the second phase of the SIR, which began on October 28. The petition specifically criticized the absence of proper legal procedures and the extremely tight deadlines for revising the electoral roll in Tamil Nadu, suggesting these elements are designed to prevent eligible citizens from voting.
The DMK leader further stressed that imposing such a massive, resource-heavy, and socially disruptive process on a state without prior consultation or clear administrative necessity violates the Constitution’s foundational federal structure. By sidestepping established legal safeguards, the states are reduced to mere implementers of top-down, unilateral decisions, which poses a serious risk of disenfranchising a vast number of legitimate voters.
The petition, filed by advocate Vivek Singh, pointed out that Tamil Nadu had already completed a Special Summary Revision between October 2024 and January 6, 2025. This earlier exercise had successfully updated the voter list, accounting for changes like migration, deaths, and the removal of ineligible voters. The state’s electoral roll was thus current, having been published on January 6, 2025, and consistently maintained thereafter.
Drawing parallels to the Bihar SIR, which saw the mass exclusion of registered voters and the introduction of strict new citizenship proof requirements – especially for those not on the 2003 electoral roll – Mr. Bharathi stated that the Election Commission’s current SIR aims to replace the established legal framework for preparing and revising voter lists.
The petition further argued that the specific methodology for conducting the SIR is not outlined in either the Representation of the People Act (ROPA), 1950, or the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. Moreover, Section 28(3) of ROPA mandates that all new rules must be published in the Official Gazette and presented to Parliament. Since no such notification or parliamentary presentation has occurred for the SIR, the DMK asserts that the exercise lacks legal authority and a proper statutory foundation.
The DMK’s plea also highlighted a concerning provision within the SIR orders that permits Electoral Registration Officers to refer individuals suspected of being “foreign nationals” to the relevant authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955, without adhering to due process. The petition clarified that determining whether someone is a foreigner is a factual matter, solely to be decided by the Union government under the Citizenship Act, 1955.
Mr. Bharathi pointed out that neither ROPA nor the 1960 Rules make any mention of “enumeration forms” for electoral roll revisions. Furthermore, common and widely accepted identity documents like ration cards, PAN Cards, and Electoral Photo Identity Cards (EPIC) have been surprisingly excluded from the SIR’s list of acceptable proofs.
As the first challenge to the second phase of the SIR, the petition strongly argued that the exercise’s rigid and arbitrary document requirements ignore the realities of disadvantaged communities, who often struggle with chronic under-documentation. These strict demands unfairly burden young people, migrants, women, economically weaker sections, and marginalized communities, who are least likely to produce such records within the extremely short timeframe provided. This inherent unfairness is made worse by the arbitrary rejection of many widely accepted government-issued identity documents.