HEADLINE: Bombay High Court to hear plea for transparency in Maharashtra’s Special Intensive Revision on October 5
ARTICLE BODY: The Bombay High Court on Monday, September 28, 2026, agreed to hear a petition challenging the manner in which the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is being carried out in Maharashtra, and scheduled the matter for detailed hearing on October 5. A Bench of Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna posted the case after a brief mention.
According to submissions made before the Bench, the petitioners contend that the ongoing exercise has serious implications for citizens’ rights. Their counsel told the court that the current process could result in the deletion of as many as 2.1 crore names from the State’s electoral rolls, and urged judicial scrutiny of the legal and procedural basis for the exercise.
While the plea does not seek a stay on the SIR, it asks the court to direct authorities to disclose the order authorising the revision, the reasons recorded for undertaking it in Maharashtra, and the methodology adopted. The petition also seeks clarity on the statutory foundation of the SIR and the standards being applied to assess eligibility of voters.
In addition to demanding transparency, the petition requests safeguards to ensure that eligible voters are not excluded. It calls for clear mechanisms for the swift restoration of names that may be deleted in error, so that citizens are not deprived of their franchise due to procedural lapses.
The petition alleges irregularities at the field level during enumeration. It states that Booth-Level Officers (BLOs) have been asking citizens to furnish documents when accepting enumeration forms, despite instructions issued for Maharashtra that do not permit document collection at that stage of the process. The plea argues that such practices are outside the prescribed framework and could lead to arbitrary exclusions.
On the broader legal question, the petitioners submit that while the Election Commission (EC) is empowered to undertake assessments necessary for conducting elections, it does not have the authority to determine questions of citizenship. In cases where citizenship is in doubt, the plea asserts that the issue must be referred to the competent authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955. Any decision that affects a person’s inclusion on electoral rolls, the petition argues, should follow the outcome of proceedings before the authority designated under that law.
The court’s decision to hear the matter comes amid concerns flagged by the petitioners over the scope and impact of the SIR. By seeking disclosure of the underlying order and reasons for the exercise, the plea aims to ensure that the revision is anchored in law and carried out with adequate procedural safeguards. The petitioners argue that without transparency on the criteria and methodology, large-scale deletions could occur without adequate notice or remedy, affecting the integrity of the electoral rolls.
The plea’s focus on the role of BLOs highlights the operational layer of the enumeration process. By objecting to the collection of documents at the time of form submission, the petitioners claim the current practice deviates from the instructions applicable in Maharashtra, potentially placing undue burden on citizens and creating room for inconsistent application of standards across different booths or localities.
The petition’s contention regarding the EC’s remit underscores a separation between electoral administration and determinations of status under citizenship law. By invoking the Citizenship Act, 1955, the plea asks the court to delineate the boundaries of the EC’s powers in relation to voter roll management, particularly in instances where questions about an individual’s citizenship may arise during revision exercises.
With the matter now posted for October 5, the High Court is expected to examine whether the SIR in Maharashtra is being conducted within the confines of existing legal frameworks and administrative instructions, and whether additional safeguards or disclosures are warranted. The court did not pass any interim orders on Monday and will consider the issues in detail at the next hearing.
The outcome of the proceedings could have a bearing on the conduct of the SIR across the State, particularly on the transparency of the process, the documentation required at various stages, and the remedies available to citizens whose names may be excluded. For now, the petitioners have emphasised that they are not seeking to halt the revision, but to ensure that it proceeds with accountability and measures designed to prevent wrongful deletions.
The High Court’s scheduled hearing will likely address the petitioners’ requests for: – Disclosure of the order authorising the SIR and reasons recorded for launching the exercise in Maharashtra. – Publication of the methodology adopted and its legal basis. – Directions prohibiting practices not permitted under current instructions, including the collection of documents at the enumeration stage. – Safeguards to prevent the exclusion of eligible voters and provisions for prompt restoration of names where deletions occur.
Further directions from the Bench are expected after arguments are heard on October 5.
