The Supreme Court on Monday declined to entertain a plea seeking 1993 as the cut-off year for the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Sikkim, instead of the 2002 cut-off adopted by the Election Commission of India (ECI).
The petition was filed by Sikkimese Mulniwasi Suraksha Sangh (SMSS), a registered public trust, which argued that applying the 2002 cut-off uniformly to Sikkim was inappropriate given the State’s distinct demographic and constitutional circumstances.
The petitioner contended that Sikkim’s demographic data does not correspond with its electoral data, particularly pointing to sharp increases in the number of local voters over the years despite the State having a fertility rate of around 1.1%, below the replacement level. It was argued that Sikkim’s position as a small border State, its distinct demographic composition and its constitutional status under Article 371F warranted a separate examination of the cut-off year.
The petitioner also questioned the rationale for choosing 2002, arguing that there was no clear explanation on record for adopting that year and urged the Court to consider 1993 as the appropriate baseline.
The Election Commission opposed the plea, submitting that the 2002 electoral roll was the last SIR roll and that subsequent electoral revisions had proceeded on that basis. It also pointed out that the claims and objections process had already concluded and that the final electoral roll was scheduled to be published on September 6, 2026. Changing the baseline at this stage, the ECI argued, would require the entire process to begin afresh.
The Court also questioned the basis for seeking a different cut-off for Sikkim when an SIR had admittedly been conducted there in 2002, just as in the other States.
During the hearing, the Court observed that if the ECI considered that Sikkim required special treatment, it would have to be based on a reasonable classification. However, the Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana said it did not find an arbitrary approach merely because the same 2002 cut-off had been adopted for Sikkim.
“
“If we would have understood that Sikkim had not gone to an SIR in 2002 like the rest of the country, yes, you had made out a case of exception. But that is not so. Every border State has these demographic changes. So we need to consider it across the board, not in a unique manner as you are proposing.”
The Court further noted that the 2002 SIR had already taken place in Sikkim and that voters subsequently included in the rolls had been exercising their democratic rights through successive summary revisions.
The petitioner maintained that the “last SIR is not the explanation” for choosing 2002, describing it instead as only a milestone and reiterating that the rationale behind selecting the year remained unexplained. However, the Court ultimately found no good ground to interfere with the policy decision adopting 2002 as the cut-off year.