The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the Election Commission of India’s decision to undertake a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, holding that the revision exercise was within the constitutional and statutory powers
Share
NEW DELHI — The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the Election Commission of India’s decision to undertake a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, holding that the revision exercise was within the constitutional and statutory powers of the poll body and was aimed at preserving the integrity of the electoral process.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi ruled that the impugned SIR exercise did not violate the provisions of the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1950 or the rules framed thereunder, and held that the ECI was empowered to undertake such a revision under Article 324 of the Constitution read with Section 21(3) of the RPA Act.
Pronouncing the verdict on a batch of petitions challenging the legality of the SIR exercise, the apex court framed three principal issues for determination -- whether the ECI had the power to conduct such an exercise, whether the inquiry under the SIR was founded on a legitimate purpose and satisfied the test of proportionality, and whether the procedure adopted violated the statutory framework governing electoral rolls.
Answering the first issue in favour of the poll body, the CJI Kant-led Bench observed that the SIR exercise did not supplant the statutory scheme governing revision of electoral rolls. “When the statute itself authorises a special revision at any time, for reasons to be recorded and in such manner as the Election Commission may deem fit, the impugned exercise cannot be invalidated merely because it does not conform in every respect to the ordinary modalities contemplated for routine revision,” the apex court said.
Holding that the ECI had not acted in excess of its powers, the Supreme Court observed that the SIR exercise “breathes life into the constitutional mandate under Article 324 within the precise statutory contours provided by Section 21(3)” of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
It further held that the objective of the SIR exercise bore a direct nexus to the constitutional goal of free and fair elections. “Free and fair elections do not rest merely upon the mechanics of polling. They fundamentally depend upon the integrity, accuracy and credibility of the electoral rolls, which form the foundation of the democratic process,” the CJI Kant-led Bench said.
Referring to the reasons recorded by the ECI for initiating the SIR exercise, the apex court found that more than four decades had passed since the last intensive revision and that large-scale additions and deletions, rapid urbanisation and migration had created the possibility of duplication and inaccuracies in the electoral rolls. “We are unable to conclude that the impugned exercise is a process resorted to solely for administrative convenience. On the contrary, we hold that the electoral SIR advances the constitutional imperative of free and fair elections,” the judgment said.
On the question of proportionality, the Supreme Court held that the exercise satisfied constitutional requirements and was accompanied by sufficient procedural safeguards. “We are therefore satisfied that the impugned exercise meets the requirements of proportionality. The measures adopted bear a reasonable nexus to the objectives sought to be achieved, are not manifestly excessive and are accompanied by sufficient procedural safeguards to prevent arbitrary exclusion,” the CJI Kant-led Bench observed.
It held that the procedural safeguards introduced by the poll body, along with the interim directions issued by the top court during the pendency of the matter, had ensured opportunities for participation, correction and redress.
The judgment also rejected the contention that the deletion framework prescribed under the SIR had undermined safeguards, holding that the requirements of notice and hearing contemplated under Rule 21A of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, were preserved “in substance”.
Dealing with the challenge to the documentation framework prescribed by the ECI, the CJI Kant-led Bench held that the prescription of a structured documentation framework was neither arbitrary nor irrational. “Any verification exercise necessarily requires a structured framework. In that context, the prescription of a set of documents is intended to ensure administrative consistency and evidentiary reliability,” the judgment said.
It further upheld the classification of documents prescribed by the poll body, including the exclusion of certain categories apart from Aadhaar, which had earlier been directed to be included pursuant to interim orders passed by the court in September 2025.
Importantly, the Supreme Court held that the Election Commission of India was empowered to undertake a limited inquiry into citizenship while preparing or revising electoral rolls. “Upon detailed consideration, we have come to the conclusion that, in view of the statutory requirement under Section 16 of the Representation of the People Act, the Commission, in the course of preparing or revising electoral rolls, is undoubtedly empowered to examine questions bearing upon citizenship,” the CJI Kant-led Bench ruled.
However, the top court clarified that such an inquiry was confined solely to electoral purposes and could not amount to a final determination of citizenship. “It does not amount to a declaration that the individual is not a citizen of India. It merely reflects the Commission’s inability to be satisfied, for electoral purposes, that the statutory conditions stand fulfilled,” the judgment clarified.
It further directed that cases where names had been deleted from the electoral rolls on the ground of doubtful citizenship should be referred by the ECI within four weeks to the competent authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955, for adjudication. The competent authority was directed to conclude the process before the next Vidhan Sabha or local body elections, whichever is earlier, after issuing notice and affording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned individuals.
“In the event the competent authority holds that such deleted individuals are citizens, their names shall be restored to the electoral rolls,” the CJI Kant-led Bench directed.
The judgment came on a batch of petitions challenging the SIR exercise initiated by the ECI, beginning with Bihar and subsequently extended to several states and Union Territories(UTs), including West Bengal, Kerala and Tamil Nadu.
The petitioners had contended that the exercise exceeded the powers conferred upon the ECI under Article 326 of the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and could potentially disenfranchise genuine voters, particularly marginalised and migrant populations unable to furnish documentary proof of ancestral linkage to earlier electoral rolls.
The poll body had defended the exercise by contending that it was aimed at ensuring the purity and integrity of electoral rolls and preventing duplication and inclusion of ineligible voters.
The CJI Surya Kant-led Bench had reserved judgment on January 29 after extensive hearings.