The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the legality of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar and other States and held that the Election Commission of India (ECI) is well within its powers to conduct the exercise.

The Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi further ruled that SIR advances the constitutional goal of free and fair elections.

"SIR advances the constitutional imperative 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 Court said.

The Bench further said that it was satisfied with the reasons provided by the ECI for conducting the exercise, including passage of more than four decades since the last intensive revision, large-scale additions and deletions over the years, rapid urbanisation, migration and the resulting possibility of repetition and inaccuracies in the electoral rolls.

On the important issue of whether ECI can determine citizenship of a person, the Court held that the poll body can examine the same but from the limited standpoint of determining inclusion or exclusion of the concerned person from the 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. However, such an inquiry can only be undertaken from the limited standpoint of determining inclusion or exclusion from the electoral rolls and must be carried out with due regard to the presumption operating in favour of an elector whose name already exists on the rolls. It is within this confined statutory setting that the Commission assesses the material before it for the purpose of arriving at a determination confined to electoral purposes," the judgment said.

Where the material furnished by an individual does not inspire confidence or gives rise to doubt, the Election Commission would be within its authority to decline enrolment or to initiate action for deletion strictly in accordance with law, the Court said.

However, such action 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 Court made it clear.

"The consequence of such a citizenship determination is correspondingly limited. It affects the individual’s entitlement to be included in the electoral rolls and thereby the right to participate in the electoral process. It does not, however, operate to divest the individual of claims to citizenship, nor does it foreclose adjudication of that question by the competent authority under the Citizenship Act," the Court further explained.

In cases where the Commission is not satisfied that a person fulfils the statutory conditions for inclusion in the electoral rolls, it can refer such an individual to the competent authority of 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 adjudication by the competent authority, the Court said.

The Court also issued the following direction.

"Regarding persons whose names have been deleted from the 2003 (Bihar) roll on account of the Commission being of the opinion that they are not citizens, the Commission shall refer such cases within four weeks to the competent authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955 for determination of their citizenship claims. The competent authority shall take necessary steps in accordance with law and conclude the process before the next Vidhan Sabha or local body elections, whichever is earlier, after giving 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."

Pertinently, the Court said that all persons domiciled in Bihar whose names may have been erroneously deleted on the ground of absence, but who continue to reside within the State, shall also be entitled to submit representations before the election authorities.

"Such representations shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law," the Bench ordered.

In a nutshell

- ECI has power to conduct SIR under Article 324 and Section 21(3) of the RP Act;

- Free and fair elections depend on the integrity, accuracy and credibility of electoral rolls;

- Bihar SIR was backed by legitimate constitutional purpose and was not merely an administrative exercise;

- SIR framework has adequate safeguards of notice, hearing, objections, speaking orders and appeal;

- Presence of voter's name in previous electoral roll does not mean an absolute bar on re-verification;

- ECI can examine citizenship for the limited purpose of deciding inclusion or exclusion from electoral rolls, not to finally declare citizenship status.

- Deletion from voters list does not mean the person is declared a non citizen, final adjudication lies with authorities under the Citizenship Act;

- EC must refer persons deleted from Bihar rolls on citizenship grounds to the competent authority within four weeks.

Background

Last year, the ECI had directed an SIR in Bihar. Multiple petitions, including those filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and the National Federation for Indian Women (NFIW), challenged the legality of the process. Despite that, the ECI proceeded with the SIR in Bihar since the top court did not impose any stay on the same.

Subsequently, the ECI extended the SIR to other States and Union Territories, including West Bengal, Kerala and Tamil Nadu. This led to multiple petitions challenging the same.

The petitioners in the Bihar SIR case raised concerns that the SIR process permits arbitrary deletion of voters without adequate safeguards, potentially disenfranchising lakhs of citizens and undermining free and fair elections.

The ECI defended the SIR, asserting that it is empowered to undertake such an exercise and that the revision is crucial to ensure that only eligible citizens are included in the electoral rolls ahead of the upcoming Bihar Assembly elections.

Initially, 65 lakh names were dropped from the Bihar draft electoral roll published on August 1.

Later, the Court directed the ECI to issue a formal notice stating that Aadhaar will be accepted as an identity proof document for the inclusion of a voter to the revised voters' list being prepared as part of the SIR.

The SIR in Bihar was completed on September 30. As against 7.89 crore voters on June 24 in Bihar, 7.42 crore electors were retained in the voter list. 

The number of deletions also came down from 65 lakh to 47 lakh.

The Court then declined to pass any blanket order on the exclusions and inclusions in the voters list. Instead, it asked the affected individuals to file appeals to the Chief Electoral Officer of the State.

Subsequently, the ECI on October 27, 2025 issued a notification extending the SIR to West Bengal, Kerala and Tamil Nadu.

Judgment in detail

In its verdict today, the Court framed and answered the following three issues in its judgment:

- First, whether the Election Commission of India has the power to conduct an exercise such as the SIR.

- Second, whether the inquiry under the SIR is founded on a legitimate purpose and, if so, whether the measures adopted by the Election Commission are proportionate to the ends sought to be achieved.

- Third, whether the procedure adopted by the Election Commission in conducting the inquiry under the SIR is contrary to or in violation of the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.

As regards the first issue, namely whether the Election Commission is empowered to conduct the SIR, the Court held that it is not in violation of the Representation of People Act.

"The power traceable to Section 21(3) is clearly intended to operate in exceptional situations and constitutes a specific statutory mechanism designed by Parliament for special exigencies affecting the electoral process. The exercise contemplated under Section 21(3) is materially distinct from the ordinary regime of revision contemplated under Section 21(2) read with Rule 25. 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. In our considered opinion, the impugned SIR does not supplant the Representation of the People Act and the Rules. Rather, it breathes life into the constitutional mandate under Article 324 within the precise statutory contours provided by Section 21(3). Therefore, it cannot be said that the Commission has acted in excess of its statutory powers," the Court held.

The Court also held that that the object sought to be achieved by the SIR bears a direct nexus to the constitutional goal of free and fair elections.

"The reasons recorded by the Commission, namely the passage of more than four decades since the last intensive revision, large-scale additions and deletions over the years, rapid urbanisation, migration and the resulting possibility of repetition and inaccuracies in the electoral rolls, are clearly directed towards preserving that foundational integrity," the judgment stated.

On issue number two, namely whether the electoral SIR is founded on a legitimate purpose and whether the measures adopted by the Election Commission satisfy the requirement of proportionality, the Court again held in favour of ECI.

"The proportionality of the measure must ultimately be assessed not in the abstract, but in the manner in which it is implemented. A process that may initially appear exclusionary can, through appropriate safeguards, be rendered constitutionally compliant in execution. In the present case, the procedural safeguards introduced both by the Commission and pursuant to the directions issued by this Court from time to time have sought to strike a balance between the need for electoral integrity and the protection of constitutional rights. The process, as ultimately unfolded, provided multiple avenues for participation, correction and redress," the Court said.

Hence, the exercise meets the requirements of proportionality, the Bench concluded.

"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 Court ruled.

Having regard to the nature of the problem sought to be addressed, the scale of the exercise undertaken and the procedural safeguards incorporated during its implementation, the measures adopted by the Commission cannot be said to be disproportionate to the objective sought to be achieved, the Bench added.

No fault in SIR process

The Court also did not find fault with the procedure adopted by ECI in conducting the SIR process.

The petitioners challenging the process had contended that electors whose names are already entered in the electoral rolls are entitled to a presumption of citizenship and that such presumption cannot be displaced save in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law.

They had also claimed that the procedure contemplated under Rule 21A of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 was not followed by ECI.

Further, they had also argued that the grounds prescribed by the ECI for enumeration of electors, especially the exclusion of previously accepted documents, were arbitrary and without reasonable justification.

However, the Court refused to accept these arguments.

"Calling upon electors to furnish supporting material in the course of such an exercise does not amount to negation of the presumption. Rather, it reflects the procedural mechanism through which the Commission seeks to reaffirm or, where necessary, correct existing entries. The presumption continues to operate, but it does not negate the possibility of verification," the Court said.

Specifically on the documents allowed to be produced by the electors for inclusion in the voter rolls, the Court said that the ECI had taken care to keep evolving and expanding the list of permissible documents.

"The evolution of the documentation framework in the present case suggests that the list of documents is indicative of materials ordinarily available to electors. The expansion of the list, as compared to earlier exercises, also demonstrates an attempt to widen the range of acceptable proofs rather than to restrict it. The argument that the regime is exclusionary therefore does not commend acceptance in the absence of material demonstrating that the prescribed documents are, by their very nature, inaccessible," the Court ruled.

Regarding compliance with Rule 21A, the Court held that the procedure adopted by ECI confirmed to the same.

"What Rule 21A contemplates as a singular, event-specific exercise of deletion is, under the SIR framework, distributed across multiple procedural stages beginning with enumeration, followed by draft publication, and culminating in the claims and objections process. It is at this later stage that the full safeguards are activated: the elector is put to notice, inquiries are undertaken where doubt exists, and a reasoned determination is made. The requirement of affording a reasonable opportunity to show cause, as envisaged in the proviso to Rule 21A of the 1960 Rules, thus stands fully integrated into the process," the Court said.

Further, the contention of that non-inclusion in the draft roll results in automatic or final deletion cannot be accepted.

"The draft roll is, by design, provisional. It triggers a participatory process in which electors are afforded an opportunity to assert their entitlement, produce supporting material, and contest any proposed exclusion. The finality attaches only after this process is complete, and after compliance with the safeguards of notice, enquiry, and hearing," the Court underscored.

The Court also held that the statutory framework does not mandate a rigid or singular procedural format for all situations of deletion. Instead, what it insists upon is fairness in action.

"The SIR guidelines, incorporating notice, publication, individualised inquiry in cases of doubt, speaking orders and a right of appeal, satisfy this requirement. To construe Rule 21A of the 1960 Rules as requiring a uniform pre-decisional notice at the very first stage, irrespective of the structure of the exercise, would be to read the provision in an unduly restrictive manner. We are therefore of the considered opinion that the deletion framework prescribed under the SIR cannot be said to be inconsistent with the procedure prescribed under Rule 21A of the 1960 Rules," the Court ruled.

[Read Judgment]

[Read Live Coverage]