Former Chief Election Commissioner S.Y. Quraishi has criticised the Election Commission of India (ECI) over the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, questioning how many illegal immigrants have actually been identified through the exercise.

Speaking to ANI on Sunday, Quraishi sarcastically said the Election Commission had “eliminated” around 14–15 crore people through the exercise, while questioning the absence of publicly disclosed figures on illegal immigrants identified during the revision. His remarks were directed at the scale of voter exclusions and should not be interpreted as an official finding that 14–15 crore people have been removed from India's population. 

Quraishi questions SIR objective

Quraishi said the ECI should disclose how many illegal immigrants had been detected, particularly because identifying ineligible voters has been cited as one of the reasons for conducting the revision.

He questioned why the Commission had not publicly released such figures and said doing so would allow the public to assess the effectiveness of the exercise.

The former CEC also used the figure of 14–15 crore, equivalent to roughly 15 per cent of India's population, to criticise the extent of voter exclusions. His statement was framed as a sarcastic attack on the electoral-roll exercise rather than a claim that the country's population had actually declined by that amount. 

Former CEC calls voter deletions a concern

Quraishi has previously criticised the SIR process, arguing that the deletion of large numbers of voters could affect the democratic process.

He said voting is a constitutional right and referred to Article 326 of the Constitution, which provides for elections to the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies based on adult suffrage, subject to constitutional and legal provisions.

According to Quraishi, the process of removing names from electoral rolls should therefore be handled with particular care so that eligible citizens are not left out.

What is the Election Commission’s stated purpose?

The ECI has said that SIR is intended to make electoral rolls more accurate and up to date by identifying issues such as duplicate registrations, deceased voters, migrated voters and names of foreign nationals who may have been included in voter lists.

The Commission has also maintained that the exercise is intended to ensure that no eligible elector is left out while removing ineligible or duplicate entries. 

The nationwide SIR exercise was announced in October 2025 by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and has subsequently been implemented in several states and Union territories.

Maharashtra voter list fuels controversy

The debate has intensified following developments in Maharashtra, where the draft electoral roll released after the SIR enumeration phase showed a substantial reduction compared with the earlier voter list.

According to figures cited in current reports, Maharashtra had 9,78,54,049 electors, while 7,71,65,562 had submitted their enumeration forms as of August 17.

The difference has become a major political issue, with opposition leaders questioning whether eligible voters could be excluded during the revision process.

Congress leader Pawan Khera has separately accused the BJP of benefiting from the alleged removal of voters in Maharashtra. These are political allegations and do not establish that the excluded names were unlawfully removed.

Opposition and ECI face-off over SIR

SIR has emerged as a contentious issue between the Election Commission, opposition parties and political groups in states preparing for elections.

Opposition leaders have raised concerns about transparency, documentation requirements and the possibility of eligible voters being left out. The ECI, meanwhile, has maintained that electoral-roll revision is necessary to ensure that voter lists remain accurate and free of ineligible entries. 

Why Quraishi’s remarks matter

Quraishi's intervention adds to the debate because he previously headed the Election Commission and is speaking from the perspective of a former constitutional election official.

His central question is not simply how many names have been excluded, but whether the ECI can demonstrate how many of those exclusions relate to the stated objective of identifying ineligible voters, including foreign nationals.

The controversy is therefore likely to remain focused on two competing priorities: maintaining clean and accurate electoral rolls while ensuring that every eligible Indian citizen retains the ability to vote.

Senior Congress leader and Rajya Sabha MP P Chidambaram on Monday criticised the Election Commission of India (ECI) over the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, saying the exercise was creating a new category of “non-voting citizens”. His remarks came after former Indian diplomat Navdeep Suri publicly spoke about difficulties he faced while dealing with the SIR process in Punjab. 

Chidambaram referred to Suri's experience in a social media post and questioned how ordinary citizens would be able to navigate the verification process if a former ambassador encountered difficulties in establishing his citizenship-related credentials. Suri, who previously served as India's ambassador to Egypt and the United Arab Emirates and as High Commissioner to Australia, had raised concerns about the process and described having faced “trouble” during the ongoing electoral-roll revision. Chidambaram used the episode to question the implications of the exercise for eligible voters who may find it difficult to provide the required documentation or establish their electoral records. 

Chidambaram's criticism

The Congress leader's latest comments are part of his broader criticism of the ECI's handling of SIR. In his latest remarks, he argued that the process could leave eligible citizens without the ability to vote if their names are not retained in the electoral rolls. Another report on his comments said Chidambaram warned that nearly 10 crore eligible Indians, or around 10 per cent of the electorate, could potentially lose their voting rights if concerns surrounding the revision were not addressed. 

The controversy centres on the purpose and implementation of the SIR exercise. The Election Commission has maintained that electoral-roll revision is intended to ensure that voter lists remain accurate by identifying eligible voters and removing names of deceased, shifted, duplicate or otherwise ineligible persons. The process has nevertheless drawn criticism from opposition parties and other groups over documentation requirements and the possibility of eligible voters being left out.

Ex-Envoy's experience

Suri's reported experience has added a new dimension to the political debate because of his former diplomatic position. Chidambaram questioned whether ordinary citizens, particularly those who may not have access to older records or documents, could face greater difficulties during the verification exercise. His argument is that the experience of a former senior government representative should prompt the poll panel to examine whether the process is sufficiently accessible to all eligible voters. 

The ECI's position on electoral-roll revision remains central to the dispute. The Commission has the constitutional responsibility to prepare and revise electoral rolls, while political parties have continued to debate the manner in which the SIR is being conducted. The issue has previously triggered sharp exchanges between the poll body and opposition leaders, including over allegations concerning voter deletions and additions. 

For now, Chidambaram's remarks have renewed the political focus on SIR and the question of how eligible citizens can ensure that their names remain on electoral rolls. Any large-scale exclusion of eligible voters would have direct implications for electoral participation, making the verification process and the safeguards available to voters key points of scrutiny as the exercise progresses.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked appellate tribunals dealing with voter appeals arising from West Bengal's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process to speed up their work, with nearly 34 lakh appeals reportedly pending before the tribunals.

The court said the process of deciding the appeals cannot continue indefinitely and observed that it should not move so slowly that the next Assembly election arrives before the cases are resolved.

The matter came before a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant after a petition raised concerns over the pace at which the tribunals were disposing of appeals filed by people whose names were deleted from the electoral rolls during the SIR exercise. 

34 Lakh Appeals Pending

The large number of pending cases has emerged as a key concern in the legal challenge surrounding West Bengal's voter-roll revision.

The appeals have been filed by individuals seeking reconsideration of decisions involving their names on the electoral rolls. The tribunals were established following directions from the Supreme Court to provide a mechanism for affected voters to challenge deletions.

Petitioner and Congress leader Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury, represented by senior advocate Rauf Rahim, told the court that the progress in disposing of the appeals was "painfully slow" and required greater impetus.

SC Raises Concern Over Delay

The Supreme Court expressed concern over the pace of the proceedings but stopped short of imposing a specific deadline on the tribunals.

CJI Surya Kant indicated that the process needed to move considerably faster. The court's observation came in the context of the approaching electoral cycle and the need for appeals to be decided within a reasonable period.

The court stressed that the process could not become so prolonged that voters' appeals remained unresolved until another Assembly election was due. 

Why SIR Appeals Matter

The Special Intensive Revision exercise involves verification and revision of electoral rolls. During the process, names can be subjected to scrutiny, and people whose names are removed have the right to challenge such decisions through the prescribed mechanism.

For voters, the appeals are particularly significant because inclusion in the electoral roll determines their ability to exercise their franchise.

The large number of pending appeals has therefore become an important administrative and legal issue in the State.

Petition Seeks Faster Disposal

The petition before the Supreme Court highlighted the rate at which the tribunals were handling the appeals.

The petitioner argued that the existing pace could leave a substantial number of cases unresolved for a prolonged period. The court was asked to ensure that the appellate mechanism functions effectively and that affected voters are able to receive decisions within a reasonable timeframe.

The Supreme Court's response focused on the need for the tribunals to increase their disposal rate rather than setting a rigid deadline for every pending case. 

Electoral Roll Process Under Watch

The developments come amid continued political and legal attention on the electoral roll revision exercise in West Bengal.

The SIR process has generated debate over voter verification, deletions and the mechanisms available to people seeking restoration of their names.

With millions of appeals pending, the functioning of the tribunals is expected to remain under scrutiny.

The Supreme Court's latest direction puts the emphasis on quicker disposal while leaving the tribunals to determine the cases on their individual merits.

 The Supreme Court has clarified that the removal of a person's name from the electoral roll does not result in the loss of Indian citizenship. The court observed that voting rights and citizenship are two distinct legal issues, and the final authority to determine a person's citizenship rests solely with the Central Government under the due process of law.

The observation came during the hearing of petitions related to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal, where several individuals alleged that their names had been removed from the voter list without proper justification.

Background of the Case

During the SIR exercise conducted in West Bengal in May 2026, numerous complaints emerged regarding the deletion of names from the electoral rolls. Several affected individuals approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the removal of their names from the voter list was being wrongly linked to questions over their Indian citizenship.

Taking note of these concerns, the apex court stressed that electoral eligibility and citizenship are governed by separate legal frameworks.

What the Supreme Court Said

A Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that while the Election Commission has the constitutional authority to conduct a limited verification of citizenship for the purpose of preparing accurate electoral rolls, such verification does not amount to a determination of citizenship.

The court clarified that any action taken by the Election Commission in this regard is limited to electoral eligibility and cannot be interpreted as a declaration that an individual has lost Indian citizenship.

Election Commission Cannot Decide Citizenship

The Bench further stated that the Election Commission's powers are confined to maintaining electoral rolls. The authority to decide whether a person is an Indian citizen lies exclusively with the Central Government under the provisions of the Citizenship Act and other applicable laws.

The judges reiterated that citizenship can only be taken away through a legally prescribed procedure and not merely because a person's name no longer appears on the voter list.

Significance of the Ruling

The Supreme Court's clarification is expected to provide relief to individuals whose names have been removed from electoral rolls during revision exercises. It also reinforces the distinction between electoral rights and citizenship, preventing unnecessary confusion among voters.

Legal experts believe the observation will serve as an important judicial precedent in future disputes involving voter registration and citizenship, while also clearly defining the constitutional roles of the Election Commission and the Central Government.

The ruling underscores that the absence of a person's name from the electoral roll may affect the right to vote, but it does not, by itself, affect the person's status as an Indian citizen.

 External Affairs Minister Dr. S. Jaishankar has commenced a four-nation diplomatic tour of West Asia as India steps up its engagement with key partners in the strategically important region. The visit comes amid evolving geopolitical developments and is expected to focus on strengthening bilateral ties, enhancing regional security cooperation and expanding collaboration in trade, energy and investment.

According to the Ministry of External Affairs, Jaishankar's engagements will include high-level meetings with political leaders and senior officials in the four countries. Discussions are also expected to cover regional stability, economic partnerships and issues of mutual strategic interest. The visit reflects India's continued efforts to deepen its presence in West Asia, a region that remains vital for the country's energy security, trade and diaspora interests.

ECI Clarifies Odisha Voter Roll Dispute

In a separate development, the Election Commission of India (ECI) has responded to allegations by opposition parties regarding the deletion of names from Odisha's electoral rolls. The controversy emerged after opposition leaders claimed that eligible voters had been excluded during the revision process.

The Commission said that only minor discrepancies had been identified in the draft electoral roll prepared following the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise. It clarified that the publication of the draft list is part of the regular revision process and that all claims, objections and correction requests will be thoroughly examined before the final electoral roll is notified.

The ECI reiterated that eligible voters would continue to have opportunities to seek corrections or inclusion of their names in accordance with the prescribed procedures.

58 Engineering Colleges Shut Down in One Year

Meanwhile, a report on India's higher education sector has highlighted growing challenges facing technical education. According to the report, 58 engineering colleges across the country have shut down over the past year, reflecting a continued decline in demand for conventional engineering programmes.

Education experts attribute the closures to falling student enrolments, financial constraints, changing employment trends and increasing preference for emerging technology and skill-based courses. Industry observers believe many institutions have struggled to adapt their curriculum to evolving market requirements, making it difficult to attract prospective students.

The findings have renewed calls for reforms in technical education, including stronger industry-academia collaboration, curriculum modernisation and greater emphasis on innovation and practical skills to improve graduate employability.

Together, the three developments underscore significant activity across India's diplomatic, electoral and education sectors, with policymakers expected to closely monitor their implications in the coming weeks.

SC Issues Notice to EC; Mamata Questions "Why No SIR in Assam?", Next Hearing Monday 

In a significant development, the Supreme Court on Wednesday issued a formal notice to the Election Commission of India (ECI) on petitions challenging the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal. The bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, will hear the matter next on Monday, setting the stage for a high-stakes legal clash just months before the state’s assembly elections.  

West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, who was present in court, personally argued that the SIR exercise is being rushed through in three months—a process that normally spans two years—and alleged that her state is being unfairly targeted. In a pointed accusation, she questioned why a similar revision was not being conducted in BJP-ruled Assam, calling the EC’s approach discriminatory.  

Allegations of Large-Scale Voter Disenfranchisement  

The Chief Minister, filing the petition under Article 32, contended that the SIR is arbitrary and could lead to the exclusion of millions of legitimate voters. She cited “logical discrepancies” in names—often due to dialectal variations or marital surname changes—as grounds for wrongful deletions. Her counsel highlighted that over 1.4 crore discrepancy notices have been issued, causing widespread public inconvenience.  

“The fight is for larger public interest,” Banerjee told the bench, claiming she had written six unanswered letters to the EC. She alleged that micro-observers from BJP-ruled states are overriding local Electoral Registration Officers, deleting names without proper verification, and that many living individuals have been erroneously declared dead in the rolls.  

EC’s Defense and Court’s Observations  

Appearing for the Election Commission, Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi defended the process, stating that all notices contain reasons and that agents are permitted to assist voters. However, the bench made strong oral observations, urging EC officials to act “a little sensible” and questioning the need for excessive micro-observers.  

The court also acknowledged practical challenges, noting that completely withdrawing all notices—as sought by the petitioners—might be “impractical.” However, it emphasized that voters must be clearly informed why their names are flagged, especially when discrepancies arise from linguistic nuances.  

Political Ramifications and Next Steps  

The Trinamool Congress hailed the court’s notice as a “big win,” while the legal outcome could directly impact the 2026 West Bengal elections. Banerjee has demanded that polls be conducted using the 2025 electoral rolls, not the revised list.  

With the Supreme Court scheduling a joint hearing of related petitions on Monday, all eyes are now on the Election Commission’s formal response. The case strikes at the heart of electoral integrity and federal fairness, setting a crucial precedent for how voter list revisions are conducted across India ahead of major elections.