Introduction

The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process created a lot of buzz in 2025 when it was conducted in Bihar, and this year in West Bengal. The process attracted significant attention, as it was heavily criticised by opposition parties. The main critique was that such intensive special revision just before the election is unwarranted and constitutes an abuse of power by the Election Commission (EC). Further, EC does not have the power to conduct such a revision on its own volition, as it would amount to deciding an important matter, such as a person’s citizenship, which is a task of the Ministry of Home Affairs.

In this article, we will discuss the case of Bihar, as decided by a two-judge Supreme Court bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and J. Joymalya Bagchi. The last SIR of this scale was conducted in 2003 in the State of Bihar. Therefore, two constitutional concerns had to be addressed in this SIR passed-through order dated 24.06.2025. First, that no eligible citizen should be excluded from the electorate. Second, the electoral roll must continue to reflect the true composition of the political community.

Case Title: Association for Democratic Reforms and Ors. v. Election Commission of India and Ors., WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 640 OF 2025.

Citation: 2026 INSC 564.

Facts

The Controversy arises from the EC’s order dated 24.06.2025 to conduct state-wide SIR in the State of Bihar in exercise of power under Article 324 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. The last intensive revision was conducted in 2003, and there have been many changes due to rapid urbanisation and large-scale migration. Therefore, to ensure the integrity of the election, it is essential to conduct a special intensive revision rather than a simple revision. The commission decided to treat the 2003 electoral roll, with 01.01.2003 as the final qualifying date.

Clause 12 of said order stipulated that any person not listed in the 2003 roll must produce one or more prescribed government documents to establish their eligibility as an elector.

Thereafter, the commission released an Enumeration Form listing 11 documents that could be submitted with it. Clause 14 provided that after the publication of the draft roll, the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO)/ Assistant Electoral Registration Officer (AERO) shall scrutinise the eligibility in accordance with Article 326 of the Constitution, read with Sections 16 and 19 of the RP Act. If anything is found doubtful, they will issue a show-cause notice setting out grounds for the proposed exclusion, allowing the proposed elector to submit a response, and thereafter render a reasoned speaking order in the matter.

The aggrieved person can prefer an appeal before the District Magistrate under Rule 24(a) of the RP Act, 1950, read with Rule 27 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 (1960 Rules). A second appeal may be filed before the Chief Electoral Officer within 30 days in terms of Section 24(b) of the RP Act, 1950, read with Rule 27 of the 1960 Rules.

This SIR procedure was challenged in the Supreme Court on three substantial question: first, the very authority of the Commission to embark upon the impugned exercise; second, the procedure and methodology adopted in carrying out the exercise, including the method prescribed by the Commission to ascertain the Citizenship of the Voters; and third, the propriety of its timing, given that elections to the Bihar Legislative Assembly were slated for November 2025.

Law Involved

• Constitution of India: Part XV, Articles 324, 325, 326 and 327
• Representation of the People Act, 1950 (RP Act)
• Registration of Electors Rules, 1960

Issue framed

1. Whether the Election Commission of India has power to conduct the Impugned Special Intensive Revision?
2. Whether the Impugned Special Intensive Revision is founded on a legitimate purpose, and if so, whether the measures adopted by the Election Commission of India are proportionate to the object sought to be achieved?
3. Whether the procedure adopted by the Election Commission of India in conducting the Impugned Special Intensive Revision is contrary to, or in violation of, the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960?
4. Whether, in the exercise of its constitutional mandate of preparation and maintenance of electoral rolls, and in furtherance of the statutory conditions governing such registration, the Election Commission of India is empowered to scrutinise the citizenship status of persons seeking inclusion or continuation in the electoral roll?

Contention of the Petitioners

The main contention of the Petitioners can be summarised as follows:

1. Lack of Plenary Power Under Article 324: Article 324 does not provide a reservoir of unchecked power outside the legislative framework. It operates only in areas left unoccupied by existing statutes, meaning it cannot bypass or override established legislations like the RPA 1950/1951 or the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
2. Misapplication of Section 21(3) of the RP Act: The Commission’s reliance on Section 21(3) is legally flawed. By text and legislative intent, Section 21(3) is an extraordinary measure confined strictly to specific constituencies or parts. It was never intended to authorize sweeping, statewide or nationwide special intensive revision (SIR) exercises.
3. Unlawful Inversion of the Presumption of Citizenship: Existing enrollment on an electoral roll carries a legal presumption of citizenship and validity that cannot be displaced without due process, as affirmed in Lal Babu Hussein and Inderjit Barua. The impugned exercise unlawfully forces voters to reprove their credentials, imposing an onerous burden on citizens.
4. Arbitrary Procedures and Execution: The SIR is ex facie arbitrary, unreasoned, and procedurally unfair. It lacks standardized criteria, uses an unbacked 2003 cut-off year, bypasses mandatory statutory deletion protections (Rule 21A), and grants unchecked powers to Booth Level Officers (BLOs).
5. Usurpation of Executive Jurisdiction: A core object of the SIR is to scrutinize citizenship under the guise of an electoral roll revision. Under the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961, determining citizenship falls exclusively within the domain of the Ministry of Home Affairs, making the Commission’s actions a constitutionally impermissible overreach.

Contention of the Respondents

1. Plenary Powers and Constitutional Mandate Under Article 324: Article 324 vests wide, overriding powers of superintendence, direction, and control over electoral rolls in the Commission to ensure free and fair elections. Backed by precedents such as Mohinder Singh Gill and Sadiq Ali, the Respondents argue that the Commission is a constitutional repository of electoral power, not a subordinate delegate of Parliament, and that its wide authority allows it to lay down procedural modalities so long as they do not violate express statutory prohibitions.
2. Statutory Validity and Scope of Section 21(3): The invocation of Section 21(3) of the RP Act is entirely lawful. The statutory phrase “in such manner as it may think fit” and its embedded non-obstante clause liberate the Commission from standard procedural constraints (under Section 21(2)) during extraordinary situations. Furthermore, the term “any constituency” legally encompasses all constituencies statewide in a single order, especially when systemic issues like rapid urbanisation, voter duplication, and large-scale migration affect the entire state.
3. Distinguishing Precedents and Justifying the 2003 Cut-off: The baseline of the 2003 electoral roll is neither arbitrary nor irrational. The presumption of eligibility from Lal Babu Hussein applies strictly to rolls maintained through periodic, house-to-house intensive revisions, not subsequent summary revisions. The 2003 roll was chosen because it was the last finalised Special Intensive Revision (SIR), and it aligns with the statutory cut-off dates introduced by the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003.
4. Procedural Fairness, Transparency, and Inclusivity: The allegation of opacity is completely refuted by the administrative record. The documentation framework was actually expanded from earlier exercises to include 11 valid documents, enhancing inclusivity. Furthermore, the process maintained strict due process through Booth Level Officer (BLO) guidelines, widespread digital and print publicity, extensive lists shared with political parties, and a robust two-tier appeal mechanism involving reasoned speaking orders by the ERO.
5. Constitutional Competence Over Enrollment Eligibility: The Commission is not determining citizenship per se under the Citizenship Act, which remains unaffected; it is conducting a mandatory inquiry into voter eligibility. Articles 325 and 326, read with Section 16 of the RP Act, constitutionally obligate the Commission to ensure non-citizens are disqualified from registration. This independent authority is reinforced by Articles 103 and 192, which explicitly bind the President and Governors to the Commission’s opinion on citizenship-related disqualifications.

Judgment

Judgment pronounced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court can be summaried under following headings:

• The Impugned Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise is fully traceable to Section 21(3) of the RP Act read with Article 324 of the Constitution. It does not conflict with the 1960 Rules or detract from free and fair elections, but rather advances the core protections of Part XV of the Constitution.
• The SIR satisfies the legal test of proportionality. Restoring the accuracy, completeness, and integrity of the electoral rolls is a legitimate, constitutionally grounded purpose; the scale of the exercise and the built-in safeguards ensure the measures are not manifestly excessive or arbitrary.
• While inclusion in an electoral roll creates a presumption of validity, this presumption is rebuttable. The ruling in Lal Babu Hussein applies specifically to individual adjudicatory proceedings and does not place a blanket embargo on the Commission’s power to conduct a systemic, inquisitorial revision.
• The voter deletions carried out under the SIR do not violate Rule 21A of the 1960 Rules. The essential safeguards of notice and an opportunity to be heard were preserved in substance, keeping the process well within statutory bounds.
• The prescribed documentation framework represents a lawful exercise of the Commission’s administrative discretion. The classification and exclusion of certain categories of documents (noting that the inclusion of the card directed on 08.09.2025 stands) are based on intelligible criteria directly linked to ensuring roll integrity, and are neither arbitrary nor contrary to the statutory scheme.
• The Commission holds the constitutional power to conduct a limited enquiry into citizenship strictly to determine voter registration eligibility. This administrative review does not amount to a formal determination of citizenship under the Citizenship Act, 1955, and its consequences are confined solely to electoral participation.
• If the Commission is unsatisfied with an individual’s eligibility based on citizenship grounds, its finding cannot assume finality. The Commission is legally required to refer the individual to the competent authority within the Central Government for final adjudication under the law.
• For individuals deleted from the roll due to suspected non-citizenship, the Commission must refer their cases to the competent authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955, within 4 weeks. This authority should decide their citizenship status before the next upcoming election. Concurrently, residents whose names were erroneously deleted on grounds of absence, death, shifting, or duplication retain the right to challenge the decision via judicial review.

Conclusion

The judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is a crucial one as it delves into an important issue of the right to vote of a citizen, which is an essential part of democracy. The Judgment upholds the validity of the SIR conducted in the State of Bihar. It has wider ramifications, as it confers and clarifies the ECI’s undisputed authority to carry out SIR when necessary. As in the case of Bihar, it was not done for almost 23 years, and, out of necessity, it is required to correct the list of electors who can cast a vote.

The judgment has engaged in proper legal analysis of the ECI’s power under Article 324 and harmoniously interprets it with that of Parliament under Article 327. It is important to adopt such an interpretation; otherwise, some of the Articles may be declared as a dead letter. Since there was a lot of confusion and protest about SIR taking away a person’s citizenship. However, the Court clarified it is the exclusive domain of the Ministry of Home Affairs, and the Commission can only determine to the extent of deciding the voter list, which is an incidental part of the Commission’s work.

Further, this judgment is authored by CJI Surya Kant in a two-judge bench, making it a subject of challenge to the higher bench or the constitutional bench, if the situation warrants.

To read content on similar topics click here.

This article is authored by Jeet Sinha.