The Supreme Court has upheld the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise carried out in Bihar, holding that the Commission possesses broad constitutional authority to undertake such a revision for ensuring accurate and lawful electoral rolls. 

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi placed safeguards around citizenship-related determinations and directed that any final questions concerning citizenship be referred to competent authorities under the Citizenship Act. 

The judgment arose from a batch of petitions led by the Association for Democratic Reforms challenging the ECI’s order dated June 24, 2025 directing a Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar ahead of the 2025 Assembly elections. Petitioners argued that the exercise could potentially disenfranchise lakhs of voters by forcing them to re-establish their eligibility and citizenship through documentation requirements and enumeration procedures. They contended that the ECI had exceeded its powers under Article 324 of the Constitution and had effectively created a fresh regime outside the statutory framework of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. 

The Supreme Court rejected the broad challenge to the ECI’s powers. The Court clarified that Articles 324 and 327 of the Constitution are not competing provisions but are intended to function harmoniously. While Parliament has legislative authority over electoral matters, the ECI remains a constitutional body with independent powers to supervise, direct and control elections and electoral roll preparation. The Court held that Article 324 is not rendered ineffective merely because Parliament has enacted laws in the same field. Instead, the Election Commission retains the authority to act so long as it does not violate express statutory provisions. 

The Bench observed that Article 324 serves as a constitutional reservoir enabling the Commission to address practical and evolving situations that legislation may not specifically anticipate. It emphasized that the Commission’s role extends beyond a passive implementation of existing rules and includes ensuring the integrity of the democratic process itself. 

Addressing objections against using the 2003 electoral roll as a baseline for fresh verification, the Court held that the selection was neither arbitrary nor irrational. The Bench noted that Bihar’s last intensive revision had occurred in 2003 and subsequent changes had largely been through summary revisions involving comparatively limited verification processes. According to the Court, it was therefore reasonable for the ECI to treat the 2003 roll as possessing a greater degree of evidentiary reliability. 

The Court also rejected the argument that voters whose names already appeared in electoral rolls enjoyed an absolute presumption against further scrutiny. While acknowledging that enrolment creates a presumption of validity, it held that such presumption remains rebuttable and cannot create a blanket bar against a broader systemic revision exercise undertaken by the Commission. 

On procedural concerns relating to deletion of names, the Court held that the SIR process did not dilute safeguards under Rule 21A of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. The Bench accepted the Commission’s position that procedural protections including notices, enquiries, hearing opportunities and appellate mechanisms remained available within the revised process. The Court concluded that deletions undertaken pursuant to the SIR exercise could not be treated as contrary to statutory procedure. 

A crucial aspect of the ruling concerns citizenship scrutiny. The Court drew a distinction between electoral eligibility and final determination of citizenship status. It held that the ECI can undertake a limited enquiry into citizenship for electoral purposes but cannot conclusively determine citizenship in a manner binding under the Citizenship Act. The Court clarified that any adverse conclusion by the Commission merely affects electoral inclusion and does not strip a person of citizenship rights. 

To ensure procedural fairness, the Court directed that cases where names had been deleted on citizenship-related grounds should be referred within four weeks to competent authorities under the Citizenship Act, 1955. Such authorities were directed to decide the issue after providing notice and hearing opportunities, preferably before the next Parliamentary, Assembly or local body elections. Individuals found to be citizens would then be restored to electoral rolls. 

Case Details

Case Title: Association For Democratic Reforms & Ors. versus Election Commission of India & Ors. 

Citation: JURISHOUR-1427-SC-2026

Case No.: WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 640 OF 2025

Date:  27/05/2026

Read More: 28% GST on Online Gaming, Fantasy Sports and Betting Platforms: Supreme Court