New Delhi, 27 May

The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the Election Commission’s power to conduct a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter rolls and said the exercise "breathes life" into the constitutional mandate for fair elections.

Delivering a major victory for the poll panel, a Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant also held that the exercise advances the “constitutional imperative of free and fair elections”.

The bench, also comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi, held that 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.

“We are unable to conclude that the impugned exercise is a process resorted solely for administrative convenience,” the bench said.

Disposing of a batch of petitions challenging the SIR exercise in Bihar, the court said the credibility of the democratic process rests on the accuracy of the voter list.

"Free and fair elections do not rest merely upon the mechanics of polling. They fundamentally depend upon the integrity, accuracy, and credibility of the electoral rolls," it 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.

In the first phase, the poll panel had initiated the SIR in Bihar, where 65 lakh names were removed from the 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.

The top court agreed with the EC’s grounds for the SIR.

“Having examined the statutory scheme and the relevant constitutional provisions, we may now proceed to answer the important question formulated earlier by us, namely, whether the impugned SIR is in direct conflict with the RPA and the Rules framed thereunder, and whether it supplants the statutory framework governing revision of electoral rolls. Both these questions, in our view, must be answered in the negative,” the verdict said.

It noted that 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 exercise therefore, cannot be invalidated merely because it does not conform in every respect to the ordinary modalities contemplated for routine revision, the court said.

“In our considered opinion, the impugned SIR does not supplant the RPA and the Rules. Rather, it breathes life into the constitutional mandate under Article 324 within the precise statutory contours provided by Section 21(3). Therefore, it cannot be said that the Commission has acted in excess of its statutory powers,” it held.

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.

“The reasons recorded by the EC, namely the passage of more than four decades since the last intensive revision, large-scale additions and deletions over the years, rapid urbanisation, migration and the resulting possibility of repetition and inaccuracies in the electoral rolls, are clearly directed towards preserving that foundational integrity,” it said.

According to the apex court, the SIR met the requirements of proportionality, and the measures adopted bore a reasonable nexus to the objectives sought to be achieved.

It said the measures were not manifestly excessive and were accompanied by sufficient procedural safeguards to prevent arbitrary exclusion.

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.

It also held that deletion from the voter list does not amount to a legal declaration that an individual is not a citizen.

While an entry in the roll carries a presumption of citizenship, that presumption is rebuttable through a "proper and appropriate inquiry", it said.

To prevent disenfranchisement, the court asked the poll panel to refer all cases of names being deleted on citizenship grounds to the competent authority under the Citizenship Act within four weeks.

The CJI said the competent authority must conclude the citizenship determination before the next Vidhan Sabha or local body elections.

If the authority confirms the individual's citizenship, the name must be immediately restored to the electoral rolls, the verdict directed.

Domiciles of Bihar, whose names were erroneously deleted due to "absence" (migration) but who still reside in the state, are entitled to submit representations for restoration, it said.

The detailed judgement is awaited.

The petitions were filed last year after the EC notified the SIR in Bihar ahead of the 2025 Assembly Elections.

The court had reserved its verdict on January 29, 2026, after extensive hearings.