The Supreme Court has upheld the legality of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India [2026]. The Court placed the SIR within Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (RP Act). It also noted the safeguards in the electoral law such as filing claims if excluded. Further appellate mechanism is provided under Section 24 of the RP Act, read with Rule 27 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.

These remedies address exclusion from the electoral roll, but not the crucial question: what follows when deletion rests on doubtful citizenship grounds?

With regards to citizenship questions arriving from exclusion from the SIR, the Supreme Court has held that the Election Commission of India (ECI) may make only a limited inquiry. That inquiry is only for deciding whether a person can remain on the electoral roll. It is not a final citizenship decision. If the ECI is not satisfied, the matter must go to the competent authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955.

It would be invalid to claim that exclusion from the SIR will automatically decide a person’s citizenship or make someone an illegal migrant. However, the SIR has been justified as a process to clean the electoral roll and remove ineligible voters. One stated concern behind this exercise is illegal migration and the inclusion of non-citizens in voter lists. Thus, when a person is excluded from the SIR for doubtful citizenship, its effect creates the first record of official suspicion and opens a referral path towards citizenship determination proceedings later.

The legal link is important. Section 2(1)(b) of the Citizenship Act defines an “illegal migrant” as a foreigner who entered India without valid passport or travel documents, or who entered with valid documents but stayed beyond the permitted period. Section 3 of the Citizenship Act deals with citizenship by birth that requires none of the parents to be an illegal migrant. Section 13 allows a certificate of citizenship to be issued in cases of doubt.

The Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 then becomes important. Section 2(f) defines a “foreigner” as a person who is not a citizen of India. Thus, once citizenship is doubted, the person may be pushed into a framework where the question becomes whether they are a foreigner. Consequently, under Section 16 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, when any question arises whether a person is or is not a foreigner, the burden of proof is on that person. The person must prove that they are not a foreigner.

So the process may move in this way. First, the person is deleted from the SIR. Second, they use the claims and appeals under the electoral law. Third, if the deletion continues on the ground of doubtful citizenship, the ECI refers the matter to the competent authority under the Citizenship Act. Fourth, once the person is treated as a suspected foreigner, the burden shifts to them under Section 16 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act.

This is why scholars like Darshana Mitra have used the experience of Assam to warn how electoral doubt morphs into a long citizenship process. In Assam, the 1997 intensive revision led to many people being marked as “D” voters, or doubtful voters. They were not declared foreigners at once. But their voting rights were stopped and their cases moved towards foreigners tribunals.

The Unmaking Citizens report on Assam’s foreigners tribunals shows why this is dangerous. It records problems such as poor notice, mechanical rejection of documents, weak application of mind by referral authorities and a heavy burden on individuals to prove citizenship. This burden is hardest on poor, rural, migrant, displaced and marginalised persons. Their records are often incomplete. Names may be spelt differently. Women may not have documents linking their natal and marital homes. Old documents may be lost due to floods, river erosion and repeated displacement.

That is why the post-SIR process needs strict safeguards. Referral authorities must record clear reasons. Notices must be properly served. The person must be correctly identified. Evidence must be read as a whole. Family records, local records, school certificates, ration cards and oral evidence on affidavit should not be rejected mechanically. When official documents are unavailable, authorities should help people seek records from issuing departments. This ensures providing a fair chance before rejection.

By holding that the ECI may revise voter lists but cannot decide citizenship, the Supreme Court has preserved a constitutional balance. This balance can be maintained only in the presence of robust safeguards. If absent, SIR may not legally decide citizenship, but it may still begin a long process of suspicion, exclusion, trial and potential statelessness.

Sourabh Roy is a Research Fellow (Vidhi Karnataka) at Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy.