The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the Election Commission’s authority to conduct the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The court said the exercise supports the constitutional goal of ensuring free and fair elections. At the same time, the top court clarified that removal of a person’s name from the voter list does not amount to loss of citizenship.

The verdict came while hearing petitions challenging the SIR exercise conducted in Bihar ahead of the 2025 Assembly elections. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi ruled that the Election Commission acted within its legal powers while carrying out the revision process.

The court held that the Election Commission has the authority to conduct the SIR under Article 324 of the Constitution, along with provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the rules framed under the law. The bench observed that the revision exercise was not done merely for administrative convenience and instead strengthened the electoral process.

“We are unable to conclude that the impugned exercise is a process resorted solely for administrative convenience. On the contrary, we hold that the electoral SIR advances the constitutional imperative of free and fair elections,” the bench said.

Several petitioners, including the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), had opposed the exercise. They argued that the SIR resembled a “National Registry of Citizens (NRC) like process.” The petitioners claimed that the Election Commission did not have the authority to verify citizenship because that power lies with the government under citizenship laws.

However, the court rejected this argument and said the Election Commission’s action was legally valid. In the judgment, CJI Kant said, “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 Chief Justice further stated that the SIR exercise was in line with the constitutional and legal framework governing elections. “In our considered opinion, the impugned SIR does not supplant the Representation of the People Act and the Rules. Rather, it breathes life into the constitutional mandate under Article 324 within the precise statutory contours provided by Section 21 (3). There, it cannot be said that the commission has acted in excess of its statutory powers.”

The SIR notification issued in Bihar had required voters who were not part of the 2002 or 2003 electoral rolls to provide linkage documents connected to their parents if the parents’ names were present in earlier voter lists. Following the completion of the exercise, nearly 63 lakh names were excluded from the draft electoral rolls.

During the hearing, the Election Commission argued that Aadhaar cards and voter identity cards issued by the poll body cannot be treated as final proof of citizenship. The court also dealt with concerns regarding people whose names were removed from the voter lists due to doubts over citizenship status.

“We accordingly issue a further direction regarding persons whose names have been deleted from the 2003 electoral rolls on the ground that the Commission formed the opinion that they are not citizens. The Commission is directed to refer such cases within four weeks to the competent authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955 for determination of their citizenship claims,” the bench said.

“The competent authority shall take necessary steps in accordance with law and conclude the process before the next Vidhan Sabha or local body elections, whichever is earlier, after giving notice and affording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned individuals. In the event the competent authority holds that such deleted individuals are citizens, their names shall be restored to the electoral rolls.”