How did the court decide on Bihar SIR electoral rolls?

The EC stated that it is constitutionally obliged to ensure that only citizens | Photo credit: SHASHI SHEKHAR KASHYAP

Story so far:

The Supreme Court recently upheld the powers of the Election Commission (EC) to conduct a special intensive review (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar. She also confirmed the procedure of the EC.

What was SIR?

Article 324 of the Constitution stipulates that the supervision, management and control of the preparation of electoral lists for holding elections is entrusted to the EC. Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act of 1950 (the RP Act) deals with the preparation and revision of electoral rolls. It empowers the EC to carry out a special revision of the electoral roll for any constituency at any time, for reasons to be recorded.

In its June 2025 order to conduct SIR for Bihar electoral rolls, the EC noted that there have been large-scale additions and deletions to electoral rolls in the last 20 years due to rapid urbanization and migration. This increased the possibility of duplicate entries in the voter list. The EC said it is also constitutionally obliged to ensure that only citizens are entered on the electoral rolls. Accordingly, the EC decided to conduct the SIR exercise for the entire country, starting from Bihar.

What issues were raised?

The Association for Democratic Reforms and various other petitioners challenged the SIR exercise in the Supreme Court. The key issues to be considered in these petitions are summarized below.

First, whether the EC is empowered to conduct the SIR exercise. Clause 21(3) of the Act on Electoral Districts authorizes the EC to carry out a special revision of the list of voters for “any” electoral district or part of an electoral district in a manner it deems appropriate. The petitioners argued that this provision is meant for special review of a particular constituency only and not for the state as a whole as envisaged in the SIR process.

Second, if the SIR is based on a legitimate purpose, whether the measures taken by the EC are proportionate to the objective to be achieved. Third, whether the procedure violates the provisions of the RP Act and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 (RER). Petitioners argued that enrollment in the electoral roll carries with it a presumption of citizenship and eligibility. Rule 21A of the RER mandates that no name already entered in the electoral roll can be deleted without prior notice to the elector concerned and an opportunity to be heard. The petitioners argued that requiring all voters to re-fill the census forms and deleting the names of those who do not return them violates those provisions. Fourthly, whether the EC is authorized to check the civil status of persons who seek to be included or continued in the voter list.

What did the court decide?

After hearing the petitioners and the EC, the court confirmed the SIR exercise and followed the procedure. The court’s conclusion on the four main issues raised can be summarized as follows. First, interpreting the word “any” in Section 21(3) of the PO Act as “only” for a particular constituency would be narrow and restrictive. The EC is within its constitutional mandate to conduct SIR for “many” or “all” constituencies in the state. It is an exercise following § 21, paragraph 3 read with Article 324 of the Constitution to fulfill the constitutional requirement of free and fair elections.

Second, the SIR exercise fulfills the requirement of proportionality. The measures taken have a rational link to the objective to be achieved, are not manifestly disproportionate and are accompanied by sufficient procedural safeguards to prevent arbitrary exclusion.

Third, even if inclusion in the voter list leads to a presumption of validity, it does not impose a blanket prohibition on the EC’s power to carry out SIR. The notice and hearing guarantees under the RER are essentially preserved and the process adopted by the EC is within the statutory requirements. The documentation prescribed by the EC, to which the Aadhaar card was subsequently added at the court’s direction, is based on clear criteria that are directly related to ensuring the integrity of the electoral roll.

Fourth, the EC is empowered, in the exercise of its constitutional mandate, to conduct a limited investigation of citizenship for eligibility to be included in the electoral roll. It is not a determination of citizenship in the true sense of the word and is limited to electoral consequences only.

Any deletion of names based on the EC’s opinion that they are not citizens should be referred by the commission to the appropriate authority under the Citizenship Act 1955 to assess their citizenship. If the office determines that these deleted persons are citizens, they will be entered in the voters’ list.

(Rangarajan R is a former IAS officer and author of ‘Courseware on Polity Simplified’. He is currently training civil service aspirants at ‘Officers IAS Academy’. Views expressed are personal.)

Published – 29 May 2026 08:30 IST