More Coverage
Twitter Coverage
JOIN SATYAAGRAH SOCIAL MEDIA
Kerala High Court refuses to hear the Pinarayi Vijayan government’s plea to delay the Special Intensive Revision as the Election Commission and Supreme Court challenges shape the tense electoral battle ahead

The Kerala High Court on Friday refused to consider the plea filed by the State government that sought a postponement of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls being carried out by the Election Commission of India (ECI). The petition was filed in the matter titled State of Kerala, Represented by the Chief Secretary to the Government v. The Election Commission of India.
|
Justice VG Arun made it clear in court that the High Court should not intervene at this stage because similar petitions challenging the SIR process in other States are already being heard by the Supreme Court. According to him, judicial discipline required the High Court to step back and avoid issuing any conflicting orders.
As a result, the single-judge bench allowed the Kerala government to approach the Supreme Court if it wished to pursue the matter further. The Court stated, “Judicial discipline and comity requires this court to not entertain this petition. Therefore this writ petition is closed leaving it open for the petitioner to move the Supreme Court or approach this court depending on the outcome of the petitions pending before the Supreme Court.”
The Kerala government brought the plea at a time when the State is preparing for the upcoming panchayat elections. The government explained that these elections would require the deployment of nearly 1,76,000 government staff along with 68,000 security personnel. Alongside this, the SIR process would require an additional 25,668 officials, creating a heavy strain on the limited workforce available in the State.
The State argued that both exercises rely on the same trained and experienced staff, making it extremely difficult to carry out SIR and panchayat elections together. It stressed this concern through the statement, “The pool of trained and election-experienced staff is finite, which constrains real-world deployment. Parting with such number of officers for simultaneous SIR and LSGI elections is a near impossibility, apart from possibly putting the State to an administrative impasse.”
Kerala also highlighted that the panchayat elections have a Constitutional deadline of December 21 this year, whereas no such urgency exists for SIR. Under Section 21(2) of the Representation of People Act, 1950, electoral rolls must be revised before each general election unless directed otherwise by the ECI. Since the general election to the Kerala Legislative Assembly is required to be completed only before May 24, 2026, the State argued that SIR need not be rushed at this moment.
Representing the Kerala government, Advocate General Gopalakrishna Kurup assured the Court that the State is not opposing the SIR itself but only seeking a reasonable postponement.
|
On the other hand, Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the ECI, maintained that the SIR had been scheduled because Kerala is expected to undergo Assembly elections next year. He insisted that the Kerala government’s fears of administrative pressure were exaggerated and added that the State Election Commission did not express any such concerns.
A day earlier, while reserving judgment, Justice VG Arun pointed out that the matter should ideally be determined by the Supreme Court, which is already considering similar challenges from other States. The apex court is presently examining SIR-related petitions filed from Bihar, Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal.
The background shows that the ECI first initiated a Special Intensive Revision in June 2025 in Bihar. That move was challenged through multiple petitions, including those filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and the National Federation for Indian Women (NFIW).
Sources:
ADR petition details: https://adrindia.org/
NFIW organisational updates: https://www.nfiw.org/about/
Even while the Bihar petitions remained pending before the Supreme Court, the ECI on October 27, 2025, extended the SIR to additional States and Union Territories such as Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, and Kerala. The SIR notifications in Tamil Nadu and West Bengal were also challenged in the Supreme Court, which issued notices on November 11.
Meanwhile, the SIR process in Bihar was completed since the Supreme Court did not stay the exercise. The ECI has clarified that the SIR outcomes in every State will eventually depend on the final verdict delivered by the Supreme Court.
Kerala reiterates staff shortage as the reason for seeking delay
In its detailed petition, the Kerala government led by Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan explained that the State’s administrative manpower would be severely stretched if both the Panchayat elections and the SIR process were carried out at the same time. The petition noted that the Panchayat elections alone need nearly 1,76,000 government personnel and 68,000 security staff, while the SIR requires 25,668 more officials, a number that the State said was not feasible to provide without affecting governance.
The government repeated its concern through the statement, “The pool of trained and election-experienced staff is finite, which constrains real-world deployment. Parting with such a number of officers for simultaneous SIR and LSGI elections is a near impossibility, apart from possibly putting the State to an administrative impasse.”
It stressed that while the Constitution mandates Panchayat elections before 21st December, there is no similar Constitutional urgency for conducting the SIR. Furthermore, the State highlighted that the general elections to the Legislative Assembly are scheduled only before May 24, 2026, giving more time to carry out revision of voter rolls without administrative overlap.
ECI counters State’s claims; says no objections from State Election Commission
Appearing on behalf of the Election Commission of India, Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi dismissed the concerns raised by the Kerala government. He argued that the State Election Commission itself did not report any difficulties or raise objections regarding the SIR process. Dwivedi pointed out that the SIR schedule aligns with the Assembly elections expected in Kerala next year.
He reminded the court that Section 21(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, makes it mandatory to revise the electoral roll before every general election unless the ECI decides otherwise.
Earlier in June, the SIR conducted in Bihar led to several legal challenges. Petitions filed by groups such as the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and the National Federation for Indian Women (NFIW) questioned the fairness of the process. Following the completion of the Bihar SIR, the ECI extended the exercise to multiple States and Union Territories, including West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala. Tamil Nadu and West Bengal have already approached the Supreme Court against the SIR announcement.
Support Us
Satyagraha was born from the heart of our land, with an undying aim to unveil the true essence of Bharat. It seeks to illuminate the hidden tales of our valiant freedom fighters and the rich chronicles that haven't yet sung their complete melody in the mainstream.
While platforms like NDTV and 'The Wire' effortlessly garner funds under the banner of safeguarding democracy, we at Satyagraha walk a different path. Our strength and resonance come from you. In this journey to weave a stronger Bharat, every little contribution amplifies our voice. Let's come together, contribute as you can, and champion the true spirit of our nation.
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
| ICICI Bank of Satyaagrah | Razorpay Bank of Satyaagrah | PayPal Bank of Satyaagrah - For International Payments |
If all above doesn't work, then try the LINK below:
Please share the article on other platforms
DISCLAIMER: The author is solely responsible for the views expressed in this article. The author carries the responsibility for citing and/or licensing of images utilized within the text. The website also frequently uses non-commercial images for representational purposes only in line with the article. We are not responsible for the authenticity of such images. If some images have a copyright issue, we request the person/entity to contact us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. and we will take the necessary actions to resolve the issue.
Related Articles
- Supreme Court stays Allahabad HC order to take over land from Mohammad Ali Jauhar Trust: State Govt of UP allotted 400 acres to the Trust that violated the conditions and built a Mosque instead of a university
- “A bench of Justices chosen through collegium got to choose to decide who has the better lawyer”: Karnataka government supports High Court verdict upholding marital rape charges against husband which is another stark violation of human rights
- "Just file an FIR and watch the magic": Delhi court denies anticipatory bail to Ajeet Bharti under SC/ST Act, proving a single complaint is enough to crush pre-arrest relief regardless of facts or context in court
- No evidence to tie Dinesh Yadav to violence, intention assumed based on him being Hindu: Anti-Hindu riots by Muslim community that shook the capital city of India and analysis of the conviction
- "The weight of 59 lives demands attention": Supreme Court denies bail to three Godhra train case convicts, emphasizing its severity. The 2002 incident claimed 59 lives, including women and children, leading to widespread riots in Gujarat
- Vinayak Damodar Savarkar – A Misunderstood Legacy
- "एक और": In Agra, Faeem Qureshi sentenced to 10 years for dowry death under IPC 304B after Varsha, harassed for ₹5 lakh, a car, and religious conversion, was found dead; her family alleged murder, but his in-laws acquitted for lack of evidence
- ‘Do we roll out a red carpet?’ Supreme Court led by CJI Surya Kant issues a sharp warning as it questions illegal Rohingya migrants entering India and a rising crisis over missing refugees nationwide.
- Supreme Court of India led by BR Gavai halts key provisions of the Waqf Amendment Act 2025 after long Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha debates, sparking fears of judicial overreach
- “There’s no such thing as failure – just waiting for success”: After denying clearances for development projects for three decades, the Indian Supreme Court green bench clears 118 development projects already delayed for 5 years for pending litigation
- "Some judges are like umpires who believe they won the game": Madras High Court, "If temples are going to perpetuate violence, then their existence has no meaning, better to close down those temples. The whole purpose of having a temple is of no use"
- “Life is a matter of choices, and every choice you make makes you”: In a historic judgment, Supreme Court declared that unmarried women are entitled to terminate pregnancies of 20-24 weeks from consensual relationships on International Safe Abortion day
- "Waqf Act is against secularism, unity, and integrity of the nation; Waqf is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution" says Ashwini Upadhyay: Filed PIL in Delhi HC challenging provisions of Waqf Act
- Hindu side filed reply in Supreme Court: 'Gyanvapi property belonged to Lord Adi Vishweshwar since time immemorial, even before the Islamic rule in India, and hence cannot be handed to anybody'
- ‘One tick, two wives’: Punjab & Haryana High Court rejects judiciary candidate Advocate Pradeep Kumar’s plea after he mistakenly declared ‘more than wife’ in application

























