'SIR Meets Proportionality Test' : Conclusions From Supreme Court Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, holding that the exercise does not conflict with the Representation of the People Act or the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, and is traceable to the Election Commission's powers under Section 21(3) of the RP Act read with Article 324 of the Constitution.

The Court held that the SIR satisfies the test of proportionality, observing that the exercise serves the legitimate constitutional objective of ensuring accurate, complete and credible electoral rolls, which are foundational to free and fair elections. It found that the measures adopted were neither excessive nor arbitrary, and that adequate procedural safeguards were built into the process.

Rejecting the argument that existing inclusion in the electoral roll creates an absolute bar against fresh scrutiny, the Court held that the presumption arising from enrolment is rebuttable. It clarified that Lal Babu Hussein judgment was decided in the context of adjudicatory proceedings and does not prevent the Commission from undertaking a broader systemic verification exercise.

The bench further ruled that deletions carried out under the SIR are not contrary to Rule 21A of the 1960 Rules, stating that the essential safeguards of notice and hearing remain preserved in substance.

On the documentation requirements, the Court upheld the Election Commission's framework, holding that the classification of acceptable documents was based on intelligible criteria linked to the objective of maintaining electoral integrity, and was not arbitrary. It noted that Aadhaar had already been included pursuant to an earlier order.

Significantly, the Court held that while the Election Commission can undertake a limited inquiry into citizenship to determine eligibility for electoral enrolment, it cannot finally adjudicate citizenship status. Any conclusion reached by the Commission would operate only for electoral purposes and would not extinguish an individual's citizenship claims under the Citizenship Act.

Accordingly, the Court directed that where the Commission is not satisfied about a person's eligibility on citizenship grounds, such cases must be referred to the competent authority under the Citizenship Act for formal adjudication.

In a specific direction concerning persons deleted from the 2003 electoral rolls on the ground that they were considered non-citizens, the Court directed the Election Commission to refer all such cases within four weeks to the competent authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955. The authority must decide those claims, after notice and hearing, preferably before the next Parliamentary, Assembly or local body elections. If such persons are ultimately found to be citizens, their names must be restored to the electoral rolls.

The Court also clarified that persons domiciled in Bihar whose names were wrongly deleted on grounds such as being marked absent, dead, shifted, or duplicated remain free to challenge the Commission's decision through judicial review.

The conclusions from the judgment are as follows :

a) The Impugned SIR exercise neither stands in direct conflict with the RP Act and the 1960 Rules, nor does it detract from the constitutional imperative of free and fair elections. It is, instead, an exercise traceable to Section 21(3) of the RP Act read with Article 324 of the Constitution, undertaken to advance the very objective which Part XV of the Constitution is designed to protect.

b) The Impugned SIR exercise, as conducted, satisfies the requirements of proportionality. The measures adopted bear a rational nexus to the objective sought to be achieved, are not manifestly excessive, and are accompanied by sufficient procedural safeguards to prevent arbitrary exclusion. The Impugned exercise was founded upon a legitimate and constitutionally grounded purpose, namely, the restoration of the accuracy, completeness, and integrity of the electoral rolls. Having regard to the nature of the problem sought to be addressed, the scale of the exercise undertaken, and the procedural safeguards incorporated during its implementation, the measures adopted by the Commission cannot be said to be disproportionate to the object sought to be achieved.

c) While inclusion in the electoral roll gives rise to a presumption of validity, such presumption is rebuttable and cannot be construed as imposing a blanket embargo on the powers of the Commission to undertake a Special Intensive Revision. The decision in Lal Babu Hussein (Supra) does not compel a contrary conclusion, being confined to the context of adjudicatory proceedings and not extending to a systemic, inquisitorial exercise undertaken in furtherance of the Commission's constitutional mandate.

d) The deletions effected pursuant to the Impugned SIR exercise cannot be said to be contrary to the procedure prescribed under Rule 21A of the 1960 Rules. The safeguards of notice and hearing are preserved in substance, and the process adopted by the Commission remains within the bounds of the statutory mandate.  

e) The documentation regime prescribed by the Commission represents a considered exercise of its administrative discretion in furtherance of its Constitutional mandate. The classification of documents, including the exclusion of certain categories (apart from Aadhar Card, which was directed to be included vide Order dated 08.09.2025), is based on intelligible criteria having a direct nexus with the objective of ensuring the integrity of the electoral roll. We are, therefore, unable to hold that the impugned documentation framework is arbitrary or violative of the statutory scheme.

f) The Commission is empowered, in the exercise of its constitutional mandate, to undertake a limited enquiry into citizenship for the purpose of satisfying itself as to eligibility for inclusion in the electoral roll. Such an enquiry does not amount to a determination of citizenship in the strict sense, and any action taken pursuant thereto is confined to electoral consequences alone. The consequence of such a determination is correspondingly limited. It affects the individual's entitlement to be included in the electoral roll, and thereby their right to participate in the electoral process. It does not, however, operate to divest the individual of claims of citizenship, nor does it foreclose a determination of that question by the Competent Authority under the Citizenship Act.

(g) In cases where the Commission is not satisfied that a person meets the statutory conditions for inclusion in the electoral roll, it would be incumbent upon it to refer such an individual to the competent authority within the Central Government for adjudication in accordance with law. The Commission's determination, being confined to electoral purposes, cannot assume finality on the question of citizenship. Any deletion effected on this ground shall, therefore, remain subject to the outcome of such adjudication by the appropriate authority.

(h) Regarding persons whose names have been deleted from the 2003 roll on account of the Commission being of the opinion that they are not citizens, the Commission shall refer such cases within 4 weeks to the Competent authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955, for adjudication of their citizenship. The Competent Authority shall take the necessary decision in accordance with law, preferably before the next Parliamentary, Assembly, Local Body elections, whichever is earlier, after giving notice and an opportunity of hearing to the deleted individuals, if any. In the event the Competent Page Authority holds that such deleted individuals are citizens, they shall be included in the electoral roll. In addition thereto, all persons who are domiciled in Bihar and whose names have been erroneously deleted on the ground that they are absent, dead, shifted or in duplication may assail the decision of the Commission by way of judicial review.