Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi told the Supreme Court on Thursday (November 27, 2025) that the Election Commission cannot take over the pure legislative functions of Parliament and Legislative Assemblies under the guise of conducting elections.
Advocate Abhishek Singhvi presented arguments on behalf of one of the petitioners opposing the decision of the Election Commission regarding Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter lists in several states before the bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.
The bench took a detailed look at the powers of the Election Commission as Abhishek Singhvi and senior advocate Kapil Sibal argued that the Commission was overstepping its constitutional limits and imposing undue procedural burden on citizens during the SIR process.
Abhishek Singhvi said, ‘By any criteria it cannot be said that the Commission is a third chamber in the legislative process under the scheme of the Constitution. Merely being a part of the Constitution does not give it full power to make laws as per its wish without reference to the laws made by the legislatures.
Arguing on constitutional grounds, Abhishek Singhvi said, ‘The Election Commission is making fundamental changes under the guise of this…’ Advocate Singhvi said that Article 324 (supervision of elections) of the Constitution should be viewed harmoniously with Article 327, which gives the Parliament the power to make laws in relation to elections.
Abhishek Singhvi took strong objection to a form issued in June 2025, which required 11 to 12 specific documents for verification, and asked, ‘Where is this mentioned in the rules?’ Kapil Sibal, while presenting his stand on Thursday, raised questions on the scope of powers of Booth Level Officers (BLOs), asking, ‘Can BLOs decide whether a person is mentally challenged or not?’
Kapil Sibal said, ‘Deploying a school teacher as a BLO to determine citizenship is, substantively and procedurally, a dangerous and unfair proposal.’ Kapil Sibal said that the rules being implemented are similar to the rules of the Foreigners (Citizens) Act, where the onus is on the person to prove that he is not a foreigner. He said, ‘How will I fulfill this responsibility when my father did not vote as per the 2003 voter list or he died before that?’
Chief Justice Surya Kant said on this, ‘But if your father’s name is not in the list and you also did not work on it… then perhaps you missed it…’ The bench will resume the hearing on December 2.