Blitz Bureau
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on May 27 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.
The court ruled that the impugned SIR exercise did not violate the provisions of the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1950 or the rules framed thereunder, and held that the ECI was empowered to undertake such a revision under Article 324 of the Constitution read with Section 21(3) of the RPA Act.
Pronouncing the verdict on a batch of petitions challenging the legality of the SIR exercise, the apex court framed three principal issues for determination — whether the ECI had the power to conduct such an exercise, whether the inquiry under the SIR was founded on a legitimate purpose and satisfied the test 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 observed that the SIR exercise did not supplant the statutory scheme governing revision of electoral rolls. “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,” the apex court said.
Holding that the ECI had not acted in excess of its powers, the Supreme Court observed that the SIR exercise “breathes life into the constitutional mandate under Article 324 within the precise statutory contours provided by Section 21(3)” of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
It further held that the objective of the SIR exercise bore a direct nexus to the constitutional goal of free and fair elections.
Referring to the reasons recorded by the ECI for initiating the SIR exercise, the apex court found that more than four decades had passed since the last intensive revision and that large-scale additions and deletions, rapid urbanisation and migration had created the possibility of duplication and inaccuracies in the electoral rolls.
On the question of proportionality, the Supreme Court held that the exercise satisfied constitutional requirements and was accompanied by sufficient procedural safeguards.
It held that the procedural safeguards introduced by the poll body, along with the interim directions issued by the top court during the pendency of the matter, had ensured opportunities for participation, correction and redress.
The judgment also rejected the contention that the deletion framework prescribed under the SIR had undermined safeguards, holding that the requirements of notice and hearing contemplated under Rule 21A of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, were preserved “in substance”.
It further upheld the classification of documents prescribed by the poll body, including the exclusion of certain categories apart from Aadhaar, which had earlier been directed to be included pursuant to interim orders passed by the court in September 2025.
Importantly, the Supreme Court held that the Election Commission of India was empowered to undertake a limited inquiry into citizenship while preparing or revising electoral rolls.
