The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday, 27 May upheld the validity of the Election Commission of India's (ECI) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise, while simultaneously directing that all persons whose names were deleted from the 2003 electoral roll on grounds of doubtful citizenship must be referred within four weeks to the competent authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955, for formal adjudication. The ruling draws a careful constitutional line between electoral administration and citizenship determination.

What the Court Ruled on ECI's Powers

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi held that the ECI is empowered to conduct a limited inquiry into citizenship solely for the purpose of determining electoral eligibility. The Court was emphatic, however, that this falls short of a full citizenship adjudication. 'Such an inquiry 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 stated.

Crucially, the judgment clarified that exclusion from an electoral roll does not strip an individual of citizenship rights, nor does it foreclose a formal determination by the competent authority. 'It merely reflects the Commission's inability to be satisfied, for electoral purposes, that the statutory conditions are met,' the Bench noted.

Mandatory Referral and Adjudication Process

The apex court made it mandatory for the ECI to refer all cases of deletion on citizenship grounds to the Central government's competent authority. The competent authority must decide such cases — after issuing notice and providing an opportunity of hearing — preferably before the next Parliamentary, Assembly, or local body elections. 'In the event the competent authority holds that such deleted individuals are citizens, they shall be included in the electoral roll,' the Bench directed.

The Court underscored that the ECI's determination on electoral eligibility 'cannot assume finality on the question of citizenship,' and any deletion remains subject to the outcome of the citizenship adjudication.

Constitutional and Statutory Basis

Rejecting petitioners' arguments that the ECI had encroached on powers reserved exclusively for the Union government under the Citizenship Act, the Supreme Court held that the poll body's authority flows from Articles 324, 325, and 326 of the Constitution, read with Section 16 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, which explicitly disqualifies non-citizens from electoral registration. Maintaining accurate rolls, the Court held, necessarily involves verifying eligibility conditions including citizenship.

The Bench also upheld the ECI's document classification framework, ruling it was based on 'intelligible criteria' and could not be termed arbitrary. The SIR exercise, it concluded, satisfies the test of proportionality and carries a 'rational nexus' to its stated objective.

Safeguards for Affected Individuals

The Court emphasised that citizenship is 'not a matter of mere formal classification' but the juridical foundation of an individual's relationship with the state, with implications for dignity, identity, and constitutional status. 'Any process that touches upon this domain must, therefore, be approached with a high degree of procedural fairness and institutional restraint,' the judgment stated.

Persons whose names were erroneously deleted on grounds such as being absent, dead, shifted, or duplicated — unrelated to citizenship — retain the right to seek judicial review, the Court reiterated.

Background and Petitions

The judgment disposed of a batch of petitions challenging the SIR exercise, which the ECI had initiated beginning with Bihar before extending it to several other states. Petitioners had argued the process risked excluding genuine voters, particularly among marginalised and migrant communities. The ECI defended the exercise as a measure to prevent duplication and preserve the integrity of electoral rolls. The Supreme Court, while validating the exercise, held that inclusion in the electoral roll carries a presumption of validity that is rebuttable — and does not bar a special revision.

With the four-week referral clock now running, the ruling is set to shape how electoral and citizenship authorities coordinate ahead of future elections.