Election Commission acted within powers in SIR exercise, Supreme Court says

THe sublime margaret court on wed upheld the validness of the special intensive rescript (SIR) conducted by the Election Commission of India (ECI), ruling that the exercise furthered the constitutional objective of free and fair elections and fell within the poll panel’s powers under the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act, 1950.In a significant 124-page judgment with far-reaching consequences for India’s electoral architecture, a bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and justice Joymalya Bagchi rejected a batch of petitions challenging the legality of SIR, first undertaken in Bihar and subsequently undertaken across the country.The court held that SIR “neither stands in direct conflict with the RP Act and the 1960 EC Rules, nor does it detract from the constitutional imperative of free and fair elections”, describing it instead as “an exercise traceable to Section 21(3) of the RP Act read with Article 324 of the Constitution, undertaken to advance the very objective which the Constitution is designed to protect.”With the ruling, the Supreme Court effectively settled the debate around the legal validity of SIR and simultaneously defined the constitutional contours of ECI’s powers to undertake large-scale electoral verification exercises in the future.The ruling came after assembly elections were conducted in six regions where SIR was held and millions of names were deleted. In Bengal, 9.1 million names were removed and 2.71 million people – placed under a controversial logical discrepancy category – disenfranchised because the appeals process ran out of time.Challenge to SIRThe petitions, filed by non-governmental organisations Association for Democratic Reforms and People’s Union for Civil Liberties, along with pleas by opposition leaders Manoj Kumar Jha, KC Venugopal, Mahua Moitra and political activist Yogendra Yadav, questioned both the legality and operational framework of SIR, arguing that it resulted in large-scale disenfranchisement and converted ECI into a de-facto citizenship adjudicatory authority without statutory sanction. Limited enquiry into citizenshipRejecting these contentions, the bench held that ECI possessed constitutional authority to undertake a “limited enquiry into citizenship” strictly for electoral purposes.“The commission is empowered, in the exercise of its constitutional mandate, to undertake a limited enquiry into citizenship for the purpose of satisfying itself as to eligibility for inclusion in the electoral roll. 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,” the judgment held.At the same time, the court clarified that any such finding by ECI will not attain finality on citizenship questions under the Citizenship Act. “It affects the individual’s entitlement to be included in the electoral roll, and thereby their right to participate in the electoral process. 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,” the court said.Importantly, the court directed that persons whose names were deleted from the 2003 rolls on the ground that they were suspected non-citizens must be referred by ECI within four weeks to the competent authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955 for adjudication.The competent authority, the bench directed, must decide such cases after notice and hearing, preferably before the next parliamentary, assembly or local body elections. If ultimately found to be citizens, such persons would be entitled to restoration of their names in the electoral rolls.Court on scope of Section 21(3)The judgment extensively analysed the scope of Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, under which ECI had initiated the Bihar SIR through its June 24, 2025 notification.The petitioners had argued that Section 21(3), meant for exceptional constituency-specific revisions, could not be stretched to justify a statewide or nationwide re-verification exercise. The court, however, rejected this interpretation and held that the expression “any constituency” under Section 21(3) could legitimately extend to “many” or “all” constituencies where circumstances warranted.The court accepted ECI’s justification that rapid urbanisation, migration, duplicate entries, non-reporting of deaths and demographic changes over more than two decades since the last intensive revision in 2003 constituted sufficient grounds for undertaking the SIR.“The restoration of accuracy, completeness, and integrity of the electoral roll is not only legitimate but integral to the constitutional mandate entrusted to the Commission,” the judgment said.On voter roll presumptionsThe court also rejected the petitioners’ central reliance on the 1995 decision in Lal Babu Hussein Vs Electoral Registration Officer, where the Supreme Court had recognised a presumption in favour of voters whose names already exist on electoral rolls.While acknowledging that inclusion in the electoral roll creates a presumption of validity, the bench clarified that such a presumption is “rebuttable” and cannot operate as “a blanket embargo” on ECI’s powers to undertake systemic electoral verification exercises.“The nature of this presumption must be correctly understood. It is, at its core, an evidentiary presumption… Such a presumption cannot be elevated into a rule of substantive law that forecloses enquiry,” the judgment held.The bench further held that an intensive revision exercise undertaken by the commission is fundamentally different from individual adjudicatory proceedings contemplated in Lal Babu Hussein. “When the commission embarks upon such an exercise, it acts not as a mere adjudicator between competing claims but as a constitutional authority discharging a duty of systemic oversight,” it noted.Court upholds proportionality of SIRThe judgment also upheld the proportionality of SIR, holding that the measures adopted bore a “rational nexus” with the objective sought to be achieved and were not “manifestly excessive”.The court accepted ECI’s contention that a comprehensive statewide exercise was necessary because the identified inaccuracies were systemic in nature and could not be addressed through piecemeal constituency-level revisions. “A targeted or constituency-specific approach may address isolated irregularities, but would be ill-suited to remedy structural deficiencies that pervade the entire roll,” the bench said.At the same time, the court acknowledged concerns raised regarding documentation requirements, transparency and access, particularly for economically vulnerable and migrant populations. It noted that many of these concerns were addressed through interim directions issued by the Supreme Court during the pendency of the case.These included directions expanding the list of acceptable documents to include Aadhaar cards, requiring publication of lists of excluded electors with reasons, deploying paralegal volunteers through legal services authorities and enabling political parties through booth-level agents to assist electors in filing claims and objections. “The proportionality of a measure must ultimately be assessed not in the abstract, but in the manner in which it is implemented,” it underlined.The court also affirmed ECI’s documentation regime, rejecting allegations that the exclusion of certain identity documents was arbitrary. “The classification of documents, including the exclusion of certain categories, is based on intelligible criteria having a direct nexus with the objective of ensuring the integrity of the electoral roll,” the judgment held.The court further ruled that the deletion process under the SIR framework did not violate Rule 21A of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, observing that safeguards of notice, enquiry, hearing, speaking orders and appellate remedies remained substantively preserved within the revised framework. “The form may differ, but the substance remains intact,” held the bench while upholding the procedural framework adopted by ECI.Lawyers who appearedDuring the hearings spread over nearly three months, senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Raju Ramachandran, Shadan Farasat and advocates Prashant Bhushan, Vrinda Grover and Fauzia Shakil, among others, had appeared for the petitioners.The ECI was represented by senior advocates Rakesh Dwivedi, Maninder Singh and Dama Seshadri Naidu.