The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday, 27 May upheld the Election Commission of India's (ECI) decision to conduct a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, ruling that the exercise falls squarely within the constitutional and statutory powers of the poll body and serves the fundamental goal of free and fair elections.

The Verdict and Its Legal Basis

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi held that the SIR exercise did not violate the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1950 or the rules framed thereunder. The court ruled that the ECI was empowered to undertake such a revision under Article 324 of the Constitution read with Section 21(3) of the RPA.

The Bench framed three principal issues: whether the ECI had the power to conduct the exercise, whether it served a legitimate purpose and satisfied proportionality, and whether the procedure adopted violated the statutory framework governing electoral rolls. All three were answered in favour of the poll body.

Why the Court Found the SIR Justified

The court noted that more than four decades had passed since the last intensive revision of electoral rolls, and that large-scale additions and deletions, rapid urbanisation, and migration had created the possibility of duplication and inaccuracies. '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 stated.

The Bench observed that the SIR 'breathes life into the constitutional mandate under Article 324 within the precise statutory contours provided by Section 21(3)' of the RPA, 1950. It further held that '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.'

On Proportionality and Procedural Safeguards

The Supreme Court held that the SIR satisfied constitutional requirements of proportionality. '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.

The court also rejected the contention that the deletion framework had undermined safeguards, holding that requirements of notice and hearing under Rule 21A of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, were preserved 'in substance'. The documentation framework prescribed by the ECI — including the classification of documents and the inclusion of Aadhaar pursuant to interim orders passed in September 2025 — was upheld as neither arbitrary nor irrational.

Citizenship Inquiry: Scope and Limits Defined

In a significant clarification, the court held that the ECI is empowered to undertake a limited inquiry into citizenship while preparing or revising electoral rolls, given the statutory requirement under Section 16 of the RPA. However, it drew a firm boundary: such an inquiry is confined solely to electoral purposes and cannot 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.

The court directed that cases where names had been deleted on grounds of doubtful citizenship must be referred by the ECI within four weeks to the competent authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955 for adjudication. That authority must conclude proceedings before the next Vidhan Sabha or local body elections, whichever is earlier, after issuing notice and affording a hearing. If the authority finds the deleted individuals to be citizens, their names shall be restored to the electoral rolls.

Background and What Comes Next

The judgment came on a batch of petitions challenging the SIR exercise, which was initiated by the ECI beginning with Bihar and subsequently extended to several states and Union Territories including West Bengal, Kerala, and Tamil Nadu. Petitioners had argued that the exercise exceeded the ECI's powers under Article 326 of the Constitution and risked disenfranchising genuine voters — particularly marginalised and migrant populations unable to furnish documentary proof of ancestral linkage to earlier electoral rolls.

The CJI Surya Kant-led Bench had reserved judgment on 29 January after extensive hearings. With the ruling now delivered, the ECI is expected to proceed with the SIR across remaining states, subject to the court's directions on citizenship referrals and the restoration mechanism for deleted voters.