New Delhi- Thol Thirumavalavan, Member of Parliament and leader of the Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (VCK), has filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court against the Election Commission of India (ECI). The petition contests the constitutional validity of a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls currently being conducted in Tamil Nadu, alleging it poses a grave threat of mass disenfranchisement, particularly for Dalit, Adivasi, and other marginalised communities.
The writ petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeks to quash the ECI's notification dated October 27, which mandates the SIR in Tamil Nadu based on guidelines originally framed for Bihar in June 2025. The petitioner argues that the timing and design of this exercise, coming less than a year before the state's scheduled Legislative Assembly elections in April-May 2026, is "manifestly arbitrary" and violates the principles of universal adult suffrage.
The petition grounds its fears in historical precedent. It references two previous SIR exercises in Tamil Nadu, conducted in 2002 and 2005, which it claims led to large-scale wrongful deletions from the voter lists. Crucially, the petition cites an official ECI press note from October 19, 2004, in which the Commission itself admitted to "procedural lapses" and "omissions" by its staff during the 2002 SIR, leading to widespread confusion and disenfranchisement.
The aftermath of the 2005 SIR was even more stark, the petition notes, pointing to a 2009 news report which stated that over 50 lakh voters found themselves deleted from the rolls ahead of the Lok Sabha elections. The then Chief Electoral Officer had attributed 25-27 lakh of these deletions directly to the SIR. Further, a 2016 report from The Hindu is cited, highlighting how tribal voters in the state alleged fraud as their names were missing from the electoral rolls.
The core of Thirumavalavan's argument is that while the SIR notification is facially neutral, its implementation will have a disproportionately severe impact on protected and vulnerable groups. The petition outlines how structural barriers make compliance nearly impossible for many:
Dalit Voters: Often forced to migrate due to caste discrimination and economic precarity, they frequently lack a permanent address, making them highly vulnerable to deletion.
Adivasi Voters: Geographical isolation, linguistic barriers, and lack of documentation create immense hurdles for their verification within a compressed timeframe.
Women: Those who relocate after marriage may not possess documentation at their new marital homes, leading to confusion and potential exclusion.
Working-Class Voters: Daily wage earners cannot afford to take time off work to participate in enumeration exercises conducted during working hours.
Disabled and Elderly Voters: The process assumes digital literacy and physical ability, ignoring the accessibility needs of these groups.
Relying on Supreme Court judgments in Navtej Singh Johar and Sukanya Shantha, the petition contends that this "disproportionate impact" on groups based on caste, sex, and socio-economic vulnerability constitutes "indirect discrimination," violating Articles 15 and 17 of the Constitution.
The petition invokes the foundational constitutional value of universal adult franchise, as enshrined in Articles 325 and 326. It recalls Dr. B.R. Ambedkar's forceful advocacy before the Southborough Committee, where he argued that any franchise that prevents a community from joining the government fails to create a "popular government."
The petition argues that the SIR, through its "arbitrary bureaucratic design," effectively reinstates a form of restricted franchise, akin to historical restrictions based on property and education. This "soft disenfranchisement," it claims, undermines the very legitimacy of the democratic order, which rests on the universality of the franchise.
For historically disenfranchised communities, the petition argues, wrongful deletion from the electoral roll is not merely an administrative error but an act that "deepens their marginalisation, isolation and stigmatisation." Citing the Supreme Court's landmark Puttaswamy judgment, it asserts that this violates the right to dignity under Article 21. Furthermore, the petition alleges that the SIR process is "devoid of procedural safeguards." It contends that the statutory, home-based verification by Booth Level Officers (BLOs) is being replaced by a non-statutory process of filing enumeration forms, bypassing the due process of a reasoned notice and hearing before deletion, as mandated by the Supreme Court in Lal Babu Hussein v. ERO.
The petitioner has requested the Supreme Court to quash the Impugned Notification dated October 27, issue a writ prohibiting the ECI from proceeding with the SIR in Tamil Nadu and declare the notification ultra vires of Articles 14, 15, 17, 19, 21, 325, and 326 of the Constitution.
The case is poised to become a critical test for the scope of the right to vote and the Election Commission's powers, setting a precedent for how electoral integrity is balanced against the fundamental rights of India's most vulnerable citizens. The Supreme Court is expected to hear the matter on November 26.
You can also join our WhatsApp group to get premium and selected news of The Mooknayak on WhatsApp. Click here to join the WhatsApp group.