Upholding the legal validity of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls being carried out by the Election Commission of India (ECI), the Supreme Court said Wednesday the exercise is “intended to secure the constitutional mandate of free and fair elections by ensuring that the roll on which the election rests is accurate and reliable”, and that the ECI has “provided cogent justifications warranting the… process”

The bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, ruling on a clutch of petitions challenging the SIR exercise which began with Bihar, said it “breathes life” into the mandate for fair polls.

It directed the ECI to refer the names of those deleted from the 2003 rolls following the SIR of rolls to the competent authority within four weeks “for adjudication of their citizenship”, noting that the poll panel’s “determination, being confined to electoral purposes, cannot assume finality on the question of citizenship”.

It said the SIR exercise was “not in conflict” with the Representation of the People Act, 1950, or the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, but was “undertaken to advance the very objective which Part XV (dealing with the framework for election) of the Constitution is designed to protect”.

The ECI, it said, “is empowered, in the exercise of its constitutional mandate, to undertake a limited enquiry into citizenship (of voters) for the purpose of satisfying itself as to eligibility for inclusion in the electoral roll.” It said “such an enquiry does not amount to a determination of citizenship in the strict sense, and any action taken pursuant thereto is confined to electoral consequences alone”.

The bench said that “under Section 16 of the RP Act, the Commission, in the course of preparing or revising electoral rolls, is undoubtedly empowered to examine questions bearing upon citizenship. However, such an enquiry can only be made from the standpoint of determining inclusion or exclusion from the electoral roll and must be undertaken with due regard to the presumption operating in favour of an elector whose name is already borne on the roll”

It said “the entirety of this exercise remains amenable to judicial review, thereby ensuring that the enquiry is conducted in accordance with law and within the bounds of procedural fairness”,

It said “this assessment is necessarily prima facie and contextual” and “must be understood in its proper perspective. 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 are met.”

The bench said “it would be incumbent upon” the ECI to refer those who do not meet the statutory conditions for inclusion in the electoral roll “to the competent authority within the Central Government for adjudication in accordance with law. The Commission’s determination, being confined to electoral purposes, cannot assume finality on the question of citizenship. Any deletion effected on this ground shall, therefore, remain subject to the outcome of such adjudication by the appropriate authority.”

It said where such reference is made, “the competent authority must decide such questions within a reasonable timeframe, and in any event, before the next Parliamentary, Legislative Assembly or Local Body election in the concerned State or constituency, so as to ensure that the individual’s electoral rights are not left in a state of prolonged uncertainty.”

The bench said “the deletions effected pursuant to the impugned SIR exercise cannot be said to be contrary to the procedure prescribed under Rule 21A of the 1960 Rules. The safeguards of notice and hearing are preserved in substance, and the process adopted by the Commission remains within the bounds of the statutory mandate”.

It said it is “satisfied that, in its object and design, the impugned SIR bears a direct nexus to the constitutional goal of a free and fair election” which “do not rest merely upon the mechanics of polling” but “equally depend upon the integrity, accuracy and purity of the electoral roll which forms the foundation of the democratic process”.

The reasons given by the Commission for conducting the SIR, the bench said, “are plainly directed towards preserving that foundational integrity”.

It said “a perusal” of the ECI’s June 24, 2025 order announcing the SIR “lays bare two major reasons” for the exercise: “First, a demographic change due to rapid urbanisation and migration in the last 20 years since the intensive revision in 2003 which has led to repeated, multiple and defective entries on the electoral roll. Second, the mandate of the Commission under Article 326 to ensure that only Indian citizens are on the electoral roll.” The Commission, it said, has thus “provided cogent justifications warranting the SIR process”.

The bench said the SIR “does not supplant the RP Act or the 1960 Rules. It rather breathes life into the constitutional mandate of Article 324 through the precise statutory conduit provided by Section 21(3). Therefore, it cannot be said that the Commission has acted in the teeth of an express statutory prohibition.”

It said “so long as the Commission acts within the bounds of the statute, records reasons for recourse to the special power, and does not transgress any express prohibition contained in the Act or the Rules, the exercise cannot be struck down as ultra vires merely because it adopts a procedure different from that applicable to an ordinary revision”.

It said “the documentation regime prescribed by the Commission” on the documents that could be presented for identification “represents a considered exercise of its administrative discretion in furtherance of its Constitutional mandate” and “is based on intelligible criteria having a direct nexus with the objective of ensuring the integrity of the electoral roll.” The Supreme Court, by order dated September 8, 2025, had directed the ECI to accept Aadhaar as the 12th document, in addition to the 11 it had permitted for identification.

It directed the ECI to refer the names of those deleted from the 2003 rolls pursuant to the SIR exercise to the competent authority within four weeks “for adjudication of their citizenship”.

It said “in the event the Competent Authority holds that such deleted individuals are citizens, they shall be included in the electoral roll.”

The bench also said that “all persons who are domiciled in Bihar and whose names have been erroneously deleted on the ground that they are absent, dead, shifted or in duplication may assail the decision of the Commission by way of judicial review.”