New Delhi, May 27 (PTI) Delivering a major victory for the Election Commission, the Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld its power to conduct a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter rolls and said the exercise “breathes life” into the constitutional mandate for fair elections.
Ruling on the intensely debated issue, a Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant held that the exercise advances the “constitutional imperative of free and fair elections”.
The bench, also comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi, said the poll panel was empowered under Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act (RPA) to carry out special revisions.
Disposing of a batch of petitions challenging the SIR exercise in Bihar, the apex court also held that deletion from the voter list does not amount to a legal declaration that an individual is not a citizen.
“We are equally satisfied that, in its object and design, the impugned SIR bears a direct nexus to the constitutional goal of a free and fair election. Free and fair elections do not rest merely upon the mechanics of polling. They equally depend upon the integrity, accuracy and purity of the electoral roll which forms the foundation of the democratic process,” the court said.
“The SIR breathes life into the constitutional mandate for fair elections,” the court said while rejecting arguments that the EC had overstepped its statutory powers.
The 124-page judgment, authored by the CJI, agreed with the EC’s reasoning on the need for SIR. The passage of more than two decades since the last intensive revision, large-scale additions and deletions over that period, rapid urbanisation, migration, and the resulting possibility of repeated or defective entries are valid grounds for the SIR to preserve foundational integrity of polls, the judgment said.
“The impugned SIR, therefore, is not a process designed to subvert the established procedure, but one intended to secure the constitutional mandate of free and fair elections by ensuring that the roll on which the election rests is accurate and reliable,” it said.
The verdict led to sharp political reactions from across the political spectrum.
“The Supreme Court declares the SIR process legal and constitutional. It is clear that Rahul Gandhi and Congress opposed (the SIR) all through because they stood with illegal infiltrators, not with Indian voters,” BJP national spokesperson Pradeep Bhandari said in a post on X.
TMP MP Mahua Moitra expressed a diametrically opposite view.
“The SC’s Bihar SIR decision today puts a stamp of approval on ECI’s illogical, hurried & discriminatory practices that ultimately led to 27 lakh valid voters unable to vote after Bengal SIR & whose fate is still in limbo. Justice must be done & must also be seen to be done,” she said.
Psephologist and activist Yogendra Yadav, one of the litigants in the case, said he stayed away from court because the outcome had been apparent long before the formal verdict.
“The news is not that the Supreme Court has today declared the Election Commission’s SIR to be constitutional. The real news is that now in this country, the BJP will decide who can vote and who cannot. The news is that the part of the constitution of this country, which was perhaps the last pillar to save it, some parts of it have broken and fallen today,” Yadav said in detailed posts on X.
According to the apex court, the credibility of the democratic process rests on the accuracy of the voter list.
“We are unable to conclude that the impugned exercise is a process resorted solely for administrative convenience,” the bench said.
So long as the EC acts within the bounds of the statute, records reasons for recourse to the special power and does not transgress any express prohibition contained there, the SIR cannot be struck down as ultra vires merely because it adopts a procedure different from that applicable to an ordinary revision, it said.
There were sufficient procedural safeguards to prevent arbitrary exclusion, the court said.
The documentation regime prescribed by the EC represented a considered exercise of its administrative discretion in furtherance of its Constitutional mandate, it said.
The EC is empowered to undertake a limited enquiry into citizenship for the purpose of satisfying itself as to eligibility for inclusion in the electoral roll, it said.
“Such an enquiry does not amount to a determination of citizenship in the strict sense, and any action taken pursuant thereto is confined to electoral consequences alone. It does not, however, operate to divest the individual of claims of citizenship, nor does it foreclose a determination of that question by the Competent Authority under the Citizenship Act,” it said.
According to the verdict, if the EC is satisfied that a person does not deserve to be in the electoral roll, then it would be incumbent upon it to refer such an individual to the competent authority of the Centre for adjudication in accordance with law.
On the issue of persons deleted from the electoral roll on account of the Commission being of the opinion that they are not citizens, the verdict said the poll panel “shall refer such cases within four weeks to the Competent authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955, for adjudication of their citizenship”.
“The Competent Authority shall take the necessary decision in accordance with law, preferably before the next Parliamentary, Assembly, Local Body elections, whichever is earlier, after giving notice and an opportunity of hearing to deleted individuals,” it said.
In the event the competent authority holds that such deleted individuals are citizens, they shall be included in the electoral roll, it said.
In the first phase, the poll panel initiated the SIR in Bihar, where 65 lakh names were removed from electoral rolls on grounds of rapid urbanisation and large-scale migration over the last four decades.
The bench examined three questions — whether the EC has the power to conduct an exercise like SIR, whether the inquiry under the SIR is founded on a legitimate purpose, and if the procedure adopted was contrary to or in violation of the provisions of the RPA.
It said the bench was satisfied that the object sought to be achieved by the SIR is directly connected to the constitutional goal of free and fair elections.
A key objection raised by the petitioners, including the NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), was that the SIR functioned as an “NRC-like process” with poll panel allegedly verifying citizenship, a power they argued vests solely with the Central government.
The bench held that the EC has the authority to examine citizenship status only for the limited purpose of determining eligibility for the electoral roll.
The petitions were filed last year after the EC notified the SIR in Bihar ahead of the 2025 Assembly elections.
The apex court had reserved its verdict on January 29 this year after extensive hearings. PTI SJK PKS MIN MIN
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.