By NEW NOW NEWS
Guwahati: The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) decision to carry out a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, ruling that the exercise falls within the constitutional and statutory authority of the poll body and is aimed at protecting the integrity of the electoral process.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi held that the SIR exercise does not violate the provisions of the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1950, or the rules framed under it. The court observed that the ECI is empowered to undertake such a revision under Article 324 of the Constitution along with Section 21(3) of the RPA.
The verdict was delivered on a batch of petitions challenging the legality of the revision exercise initiated by the Election Commission in Bihar and later extended to states and Union Territories such as West Bengal, Kerala and Tamil Nadu.
While examining the matter, the apex court framed three key questions – whether the ECI had the authority to conduct the exercise, whether the revision served a legitimate purpose and satisfied the principle 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 Bench stated that the law itself permits a special revision whenever required, provided reasons are recorded. The court clarified that the SIR exercise does not replace the existing statutory mechanism for electoral roll revision.
The judgment further stated that the exercise strengthens the constitutional mandate under Article 324 and supports the objective of conducting free and fair elections. According to the court, the credibility and accuracy of electoral rolls are essential to maintaining the democratic process.
Referring to the reasons cited by the Election Commission, the Bench noted that more than four decades had passed since the last intensive revision. It observed that rapid urbanisation, migration and large-scale additions and deletions in voter lists had increased the possibility of duplication and inaccuracies in electoral rolls.
Rejecting the argument that the exercise was merely an administrative measure, the court held that the revision directly advances the constitutional goal of ensuring fair elections.
On the issue of proportionality, the Supreme Court said the measures adopted by the ECI were reasonable and accompanied by adequate safeguards. It noted that the poll body had provided mechanisms for participation, correction and grievance redressal, while interim directions issued by the court during the proceedings further strengthened procedural protections.
The Bench also dismissed concerns regarding the deletion framework under the SIR exercise, holding that safeguards relating to notice and hearing under Rule 21A of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, had been substantially preserved.
Addressing objections to the documentation requirements prescribed by the Election Commission, the court ruled that a structured documentation framework was necessary to ensure administrative consistency and evidentiary reliability. It upheld the classification of documents specified by the poll body, including the exclusion of certain categories apart from Aadhaar, which had earlier been included following interim directions issued in September 2025.
Importantly, the apex court held that the Election Commission has the authority to conduct a limited inquiry into citizenship during the preparation or revision of electoral rolls. However, it clarified that such scrutiny is only for electoral purposes and does not amount to a final declaration on citizenship status.
The Bench directed that cases where names were deleted from voter rolls due to doubtful citizenship must be referred by the ECI within four weeks to the competent authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955. The authority has been instructed to complete the adjudication process before the next Vidhan Sabha or local body elections, whichever takes place earlier, after providing notice and an opportunity of hearing to the affected individuals.
The court further ordered that if the competent authority determines that the deleted individuals are Indian citizens, their names must be restored to the electoral rolls.
The petitions against the SIR exercise argued that the revision process exceeded the powers granted to the ECI under Article 326 of the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act, 1950. Petitioners had also claimed that the exercise could disenfranchise genuine voters, especially marginalised and migrant communities unable to produce documentary proof linking them to earlier electoral rolls.
Defending its decision, the Election Commission maintained that the revision exercise was intended to ensure the purity of electoral rolls by preventing duplication and the inclusion of ineligible voters.
The CJI Surya Kant-led Bench had reserved its verdict on January 29 after extensive hearings in the matter.