Supreme Court SIR Hearing Live: SIR is legally valid, says Supreme Court in big win for Election Commission

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.

While allowing the Special Intensive Revision process to continue, the Supreme Court had clarified during hearings that it would separately decide the larger legal question of whether the Election Commission of India possesses the authority to undertake such an exercise in its present form.

Notably, the court did not stay or interdict the SIR process during the pendency of the case. Since then, the exercise has already been completed in Bihar, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Puducherry and West Bengal, while it is currently underway in several other states, including Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat and Rajasthan.

Petitioners alleged that the exercise effectively amounted to an “NRC-like process”, arguing that the Election Commission was indirectly verifying citizenship — a power they contended lies exclusively with the central government.
 

The Election Commission defended the exercise, stating that Aadhaar cards and voter identity cards cannot be treated as conclusive proof of citizenship, and that the revision process was necessary to maintain the integrity of electoral rolls.

Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for ADR, questioned both the timeline for completion of the exercise and the large-scale deletion of 65 lakh voters. He also sought clarity on the basis for classifying voters as dead, migrated, or registered elsewhere.

According to the SIR notification, voters whose names did not appear in the 2002 or 2003 electoral rolls were required to establish ancestral linkage with individuals whose names were present in those rolls.

As part of the SIR exercise, the Election Commission released draft electoral rolls that showed around 65 lakh names had been removed. These names were categorised as dead, migrated, duplicate, or registered in other constituencies.
 

The Supreme Court had begun final hearings in the matter on August 12 last year. During the proceedings, the court observed that inclusion and exclusion of names in electoral rolls falls within the constitutional remit of the Election Commission.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant had reserved its verdict on January 29 on the pleas, including a petition filed by the NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR).

The petitions have argued that the Election Commission does not have the authority under Article 326 of the Constitution, the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the Rules framed under it to conduct such a large-scale revision exercise in the manner undertaken through the SIR.