The Supreme Court will on Wednesday deliver its ruling on petitions challenging the validity of the special intensive revision (SIR) conducted by the Election Commission of India, in what will amount to the most significant judicial review of the country’s electoral roll architecture since the Constitution came into force.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and justice Joymalya Bagchi on January 29 reserved judgment after hearing arguments over several dates spread across nearly three months.
The batch of petitions, led by Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), along with pleas filed by opposition leaders Manoj Kumar Jha, KC Venugopal, Mahua Moitra and political activist Yogendra Yadav, challenge both the legality and operational framework of the SIR exercise initiated by the poll panel in Bihar and later extended to several other states and Union territories, including West Bengal.
The petitioners have argued that the timing, manner and scale of the exercise , undertaken shortly before assembly elections in multiple states, resulted in large-scale disenfranchisement and transformed the Election Commission into a de facto citizenship verification authority without statutory backing.
The judgment assumes political and constitutional significance because assembly elections in several states, including West Bengal, have already been conducted on the basis of revised electoral rolls prepared following the SIR exercise.
By the time West Bengal voted in April this year, over 9.1 million names, amounting to approximately 11.88% of the state’s pre-revision electorate of 76.6 million, had been deleted from the rolls pursuant to the exercise, according to data placed before the court during the hearings.
The challenge before the apex court centres on whether the Election Commission possesses the authority under Article 326 of the Constitution, Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 to undertake what the petitioners described as a de novo reconstruction of electoral rolls.
The SIR process, first initiated in Bihar through a June 24, 2025 notification, required voters not traceable to the 2002 or 2003 electoral rolls to furnish documentary proof linking them to persons present in those legacy rolls. Initially, the ECI prescribed 11 categories of acceptable documents, later expanding the list to include Aadhaar following interim directions from the Supreme Court.
The petitioners contended that the process effectively reversed the settled legal presumption recognised in Lal Babu Hussein Vs Electoral Registration Officer (1995), under which a person whose name already exists on the electoral roll is presumed to be an Indian citizen unless proven otherwise by the state.
According to the challengers, the SIR exercise impermissibly shifted the burden onto existing voters to prove citizenship, thereby creating what they described as a “suspended citizenship” regime.
Senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Raju Ramachandran, Shadan Farasat, advocates Prashant Bhushan, Vrinda Grover and Fauzia Shakil, among others, argued that the Election Commission cannot assume powers akin to citizenship adjudication, which constitutionally belong to the Union government and Foreigners Tribunals under the Citizenship Act.
They further questioned the statutory validity of the enumeration forms used during the exercise and argued that Section 21(3), which permits “special revision” of electoral rolls, could not be stretched to justify a mass, nationwide re-verification exercise covering multiple states simultaneously.
The petitioners also highlighted concerns over transparency, alleging arbitrary deletions, inconsistent implementation, inadequate hearing procedures and use of undocumented “logical discrepancy” software classifications in states such as West Bengal.
The Election Commission, however, defended the exercise as a constitutionally mandated verification process necessary to ensure purity of electoral rolls and prevent non-citizens from participating in elections.
Appearing for the poll panel, senior advocates Rakesh Dwivedi, Maninder Singh and Dama Seshadri Naidu argued that the commission was merely verifying citizenship for electoral purposes and not determining citizenship in the legal sense.
The ECI maintained that the exercise was a “liberal” and “soft-touch” verification mechanism aimed at cleansing rolls of dead, duplicate, migrated or otherwise ineligible voters. It asserted that Article 326, which mandates elections based on adult suffrage, necessarily obligates the commission to ensure that only Indian citizens remain on the electoral rolls.
The commission also argued that the SIR exercise was distinguishable from the circumstances examined in Lal Babu Hussein because the present process involved no police inquiry and provided administrative verification mechanisms at the booth level through house-to-house enumeration by Booth Level Officers.
During the hearings, the bench made several important observations indicating the broader constitutional stakes involved. The court noted that while the ECI may possess powers to conduct electoral roll revisions, those powers could not be “untrammelled” and must conform to principles of transparency and natural justice.
At one stage, the bench also observed that the recitals of the SIR notification did not expressly indicate rooting out illegal migrants as one of the purposes of the exercise and sought data from the commission on whether any illegal migrants had in fact been identified through the Bihar SIR.
The court had earlier, through interim orders passed under Article 142 of the Constitution, directed the commission to widen the list of acceptable documents by including Aadhaar, Elector’s Photo Identity Card (EPIC) and ration cards, while repeatedly emphasising that the objective should be “mass inclusion, not en masse exclusion”.
In West Bengal, where the exercise led to deletion of over 9.1 million voters before assembly polls held in April, the Supreme Court additionally deployed around 700 judicial officers and later constituted 19 appellate tribunals headed by retired high court judges to hear deletion-related appeals.
The verdict expected on Wednesday is likely to determine not only the legality of the SIR exercise but also larger constitutional questions concerning the nature of the right to vote, the extent of the Election Commission’s powers under Article 324 and Article 326, and the procedural safeguards required before deleting citizens from electoral rolls.
The ruling is also expected to settle an important doctrinal debate over whether the right to be registered as a voter is merely statutory, as earlier held in Kuldip Nayar Vs Union of India (2006), or whether it carries constitutional protection under Articles 14, 19 and 21, as indicated in subsequent decisions such as PUCL Vs Union of India (2003) and Anoop Baranwal Vs Union of India (2023).
