The Supreme Court of India on Friday, April 10, declined to intervene in the case of a woman whose name was deleted from the Tamil Nadu electoral roll during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), even as her counsel reminded the court of its earlier assurance to step in if the exercise resulted in “mass exclusions”.
The petitioner, C Geetha, said her name had figured in the State’s electoral roll for years and that she intended to contest as an independent candidate from the 51-Uthangarai (SC) and 52-Bargur Assembly constituencies in the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly elections. She approached the apex court after the Madras High Court dismissed her plea.
Appearing before a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, along with advocate Shashank Manish, submitted that Geetha had not received any notice from the Election Commission before her name was deleted, and that she only learned of the deletion when she attempted to file her nomination.
The lack of a notice or any communication being sent to her regarding the deletion was a violation of principles of natural justice guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution, she said in her plea.
Sankaranarayanan told the court that although the nomination date had passed, the supplementary list was still under preparation. He said his client possessed extensive documentary proof, including an Indian passport, to establish her citizenship and sought restoration of her name.
“The sudden deletion of her name is not only wrongful, arbitrary and contrary to law but also a blatant violation of her fundamental rights,” he argued, questioning why the Election Commission wanted to “exclude people” from their right to vote.
Senior advocate Dama Seshadiri Naidu, appearing for the Election Commission of India, opposed the plea, saying that it was too late.
After the court declined to intervene, Sankaranarayanan reminded the Bench that it had earlier observed it would step in if there were “mass exclusions”. Referring to Justice Joymalya Bagchi, who was part of the Bench, he said, “I remember Justice Bagchi saying if there is mass exclusion, we will be protected. Now this is what has happened.”
In July last year, the Supreme Court had urged the ECI to accept Aadhar and the EPIC as identity documents as proof of identity with regard to the SIR in Bihar. It had said at the time that the outcome of the SIR should be “mass inclusion” and not the opposite.