Supreme Court SIR Hearing Live: Opposition narrative in Bihar and Bengal has collapsed, BJP on SIR verdict

Reacting to the Supreme Court’s decision upholding the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise, BJP leader Sudhanshu Trivedi said the verdict has made it clear that the electoral roll revision process was justified and necessary to ensure free and fair elections.

Trivedi claimed that despite political opposition and what he described as setbacks faced by parties opposing the exercise in Bihar and West Bengal, public response and the Supreme Court’s observations have now endorsed the Election Commission’s position.

“Despite the defeats in Bihar and Bengal, following public response, the Supreme Court has made it clear that SIR was right,” he said.

He further stated that the apex court had effectively recognised the importance of the exercise in protecting electoral integrity. “SIR was required for free and fair elections. The Supreme Court has praised SIR,” Trivedi added.

Trinamool Congress MP and advocate Kalyan Banerjee said the Supreme Court's verdict on SIR was only applicable to Bihar and not pan India.

The justice which has been delivered in the SIR matter is applicable in the case of Bihar. That is not all-India,” Banerjee said.

“One interesting thing has been said — if EC has no authority to decide who is a citizen and who is not and if the EC has deleted any name on the ground of citizenship, then they should refer the matter to the appropriate authority under the Citizenship Act. That authority will decide whether the persons are citizens or non-citizens. If yes, then their names should be included,” he said.

Drawing a distinction between Bihar and Bengal, the TMC leader said Bengal’s challenge to the SIR process was based on separate grounds. 

“At the same time, in principle, the Supreme Court has held that the SIR is constitutional but the SC has given so many directions in the procedural safeguards,” Banerjee added.

Reacting to the Supreme Court’s decision upholding the Election Commission’s authority to conduct the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter rolls, Uttar Pradesh Congress President Ajay Rai criticised what he described as bias in the implementation of the exercise.

“The partiality currently taking place is unacceptable; such bias is wrong. Individuals are being singled out and targeted for punitive action,” Rai said.

He further asserted that the Congress would continue to oppose what it sees as unfair practices linked to the process. “We are firmly committed to upholding what is right. The entire country stands with what is right; whatever is unjust remains unjust,” he added.

BJP National General Secretary Tarun Chugh said Supreme Court's verdict on SIR reaffirmed the constitutional powers of the Election Commission to strengthen democracy and ensure transparency in electoral rolls.

Chugh said voter list sanitisation was a “necessity” and claimed the Opposition had attempted to mislead people over the SIR exercise for political reasons. He said the Supreme Court has now given a “befitting reply” to those criticisms through its verdict.

Targeting the Congress-led Opposition, Chugh alleged that parties opposing the exercise were motivated by “vote bank politics” and were uncomfortable with efforts to remove illegal or fake voters from the electoral rolls. He further said that while voter list sanitisation is “the need of the hour”, the Opposition opposed every “constructive process” linked to electoral reforms because of its political interests.

After Supreme Court relief to the ECI, CEC Gyanesh Kumar releases video message.

Yadav said the course of the case was settled in August last year, and after three days of arguments against SIR, the court moved away from examining its constitutionality and instead focused on grievance redressal and arbitration. According to him, the case effectively narrowed once the court allowed the Election Commission of India to proceed with Bihar elections without first resolving the core issues.

Yogendra Yadav said he did not go to the Supreme Court to hear its order in the SIR case. As a litigant and someone who was allowed to address the court, he said he should have felt hopeful, anxious or curious, but did not, adding that in his view the case had already been decided long ago and only the transcript and fine print remained.

Reacting to the Supreme Court’s decision upholding the Election Commission’s authority to conduct Special Intensive Revision, BJP national spokesperson Ajay Alok said the judgment reinforces constitutional propriety and the role of independent institutions.

He said the Supreme Court functions strictly within the framework of the Constitution, but alleged that certain “Constitution experts” were placing their own views above constitutional provisions while opposing the SIR exercise. He named leaders Rahul Gandhi, Mamata Banerjee, Tejashwi Yadav and Akhilesh Yadav, accusing them of opposing the Election Commission and questioning its integrity.

Alok further claimed that these political leaders had “abused” the Election Commission during the course of the debate on SIR, and said the Supreme Court has now given them a “befitting reply” through its judgment. He thanked the apex court for its ruling, calling it “much needed” in the context of ongoing political criticism of the electoral revision process.

Reacting to the Supreme Court’s verdict on the SIR exercise, petitioner and lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay said the court had accepted key arguments put forward by both the Election Commission of India and the petitioners, while rejecting allegations raised in multiple PILs challenging the process.

He said the petitions, including over 20 PILs filed by opposition-linked groups, had questioned the impartiality of the Election Commission and the procedure adopted for the SIR exercise, but the Supreme Court has rejected those allegations.

Emphasising the importance of electoral integrity, Upadhyay said that for free and fair elections it is essential that no ineligible person figures in the voter list. He further said that the Supreme Court has affirmed the validity of the list of 11 prescribed documents used for voter verification.

Reacting to the Supreme Court’s decision upholding the Election Commission’s power to undertake Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter rolls that began in Bihar, Uttar Pradesh Minister Om Prakash Rajbhar said the judgment reinforces the autonomy of constitutional bodies.

He said the Election Commission is an independent institution with the authority to conduct such exercises, adding that the Supreme Court has effectively “put its stamp of approval” on the process.

Rajbhar also criticised the Opposition, alleging that it often makes “absurd comments” and opposes even measures carried out in accordance with the Constitution.

The Supreme Court clarified that the Election Commission’s determination under the SIR exercise is strictly confined to the electoral process and cannot be treated as a final adjudication on citizenship. It held that the ECI’s role is limited to inclusion or exclusion from electoral rolls and does not extend to making conclusive decisions on a person’s citizenship status.

The court further observed that citizenship cannot be presumed to be denied merely on the basis of deletion from electoral rolls, and that individuals so affected may be restored to the voter list following due adjudication by the competent authorities.

The Supreme Court observed that the classification of documents used in the Special Intensive Revision exercise was not arbitrary, and that Aadhaar had been included in the process pursuant to directions issued by it. The court said that the overall documentation framework adopted by the Election Commission was legally structured and consistent with the objective of electoral roll revision.

It clarified that the question of citizenship arises only in the limited context of determining eligibility for inclusion in the electoral rolls, and that the Election Commission does not undertake a formal determination of citizenship status. It emphasised that the SIR exercise does not confer or deny citizenship under any circumstances.

The Supreme Court further directed that any cases involving deletion of names on the ground of suspected non-citizenship must be referred to the competent authorities for appropriate adjudication. It observed that such matters should be placed before the Home Ministry and Foreigners’ Tribunals for determination within four weeks, ensuring that the issue of citizenship is decided by the appropriate statutory forum and not by the Election Commission.

The Supreme Court observed that electors were put on notice during the Special Intensive Revision exercise, and that inquiries were undertaken wherever doubts arose regarding entries in the electoral rolls. It further noted that the requirement of providing a reasonable opportunity was fully integrated into the process.

The court emphasised that the Election Commission’s SIR mechanism incorporated procedural fairness at every stage. It held that while the law does not prescribe a rigid framework for deletions or corrections in electoral rolls, it does mandate fairness in action, which was duly ensured in the present exercise.

The Supreme Court held that the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise is valid in law and does not detract from the constitutional powers of the Election Commission of India. It observed that the exercise satisfies the test of proportionality and is supported by sufficient procedural safeguards.

The court further noted that the SIR exercise was undertaken on legitimate grounds, particularly the objective of ensuring accurate and updated electoral rolls, and therefore cannot be faulted on the basis of its intent or structure.

The Supreme Court observed that any inquiry by the Election Commission of India in the context of electoral roll revision is strictly confined to the question of inclusion or exclusion of names from the voters’ list. The court clarified that such assessment is a limited and contextual exercise undertaken within the statutory framework governing electoral rolls.

It further held that the Election Commission is required to conduct such scrutiny strictly within the bounds of law and is empowered to decide whether a person is to be included in or excluded from the electoral rolls. However, the court emphasised that such action does not amount to a citizenship determination exercise, and must not be treated as one.
 

The Supreme Court also noted that the SIR process in Bihar does not detract from the constitutional obligation of free and fair elections. It observed that the process provided multiple avenues, satisfied the requirements of proportionality, and was accompanied by sufficient safeguards. The exercise was found to be grounded in the legitimate purpose of maintaining accurate electoral rolls and was held to be legally tenable.

In its considered opinion, the Supreme Court held that the impugned SIR does not supplant the Representation of the People Act and the Rules, but instead “breathes life into the constitutional mandate under Article 324” within the statutory contours provided by Section 21(3). It therefore concluded that the Commission had not acted in excess of its statutory powers. 

In its observation, the Supreme Court said that the SIR does not supplant the Representation of the People Act. Referring to Section 23, it held that the exercise of powers under the statute includes an enabling provision introduced by Parliament, and that the revision exercise cannot be struck down merely because its procedure differs from the ordinary process of electoral roll revision.

It further held that the exercise has a clear nexus with the constitutional goal of free and fair elections, and does not distract from the constitutional obligation to ensure such elections.

The court noted that 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.

(Inputs by Srishti Ojha)
 

The Supreme Court noted that the Election Commission had directed the conduct of Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, and that the Court, after considering the sequence of events, was required to examine several core issues arising from the challenge to the exercise.

The issues identified for determination included whether the Election Commission of India (ECI) has the power to conduct SIR, whether the impugned exercise was carried out for an illegitimate purpose, whether the process violated the Representation of the People Act and the Electoral Rules, 1960, and whether the EC could scrutinise citizenship status for inclusion in electoral rolls.

(Inputs by Srishti Ojha)

A Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi has assembled to deliver its verdict on a number of petitions challenging the legality of the SIR exercise.