SIR | Supreme Court Asks ECI To Send To Centre Names Of Persons Deleted From 2003 Bihar Roll Over Doubtful Citizenship

While upholding the legality of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise of electoral rolls, the Supreme Court directed the Election Commission of India to forward to the Central Government the names of persons deleted from the 2003 Bihar electoral roll over doubtful citizenship within four weeks, to determine their citizenship.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, pronouncing judgment in a batch of petitions which challenged the ECI's notification to conduct SIR in Bihar,  observed :

"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 Court directed the competent authority to complete the process in accordance with law before the next Vidhan Sabha or local body elections, whichever is earlier, after issuing notice to the concerned individuals and giving them an opportunity of hearing. The Court added that if the competent authority concludes that the deleted individuals are citizens, their names must be restored to the electoral rolls.

"The competent authority shall take necessary steps in accordance with law and conclude the process before the next Vidhan Sabha or local body elections, whichever is earlier, after giving notice and affording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned individuals. In the event the competent authority holds that such deleted individuals are citizens, their names shall be restored to the electoral rolls."

The Court further added that 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.

The Court held that the ECI has the power to go into the question of citizenship for the purpose of inclusion in the electoral roll. At the same time, the ECI's determination of citizenship is not final, and is confined only to electoral roll inclusion. The ECI's negative determination will not conclusively negate the citizenship of a person, as it can be determined only by the competent authority under the Citizenship Act, 2003.

"Upon detailed consideration, we have come to the conclusion that, in view of the statutory requirement under Section 16 of the Representation of the People Act, the Commission, in the course of preparing or revising electoral rolls, is undoubtedly empowered to examine questions bearing upon citizenship.

The Commission is empowered, in exercise of its constitutional mandate, to undertake a meaningful inquiry into citizenship for the limited purpose of satisfying itself as to eligibility for inclusion in the electoral rolls. Such an inquiry 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 citizenship determination is correspondingly limited. It affects the individual's entitlement to be included in the electoral rolls and thereby the right to participate in the electoral process. It does not, however, operate to divest the individual of claims to citizenship, nor does it foreclose adjudication of that question by the competent authority under the Citizenship Act," CJI Surya Kant pronounced.

In cases where the Commission is not satisfied that a person fulfils the statutory conditions for inclusion in the electoral rolls, it would be incumbent upon the Commission to refer such an individual to the competent authority of the Union 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 adjudication by the competent authority.

Headnote

Representation of the People Act, 1950 – Section 21(3) – Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 – Rule 21A – Constitution of India – Articles 324, 325, 326 & 327 – Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Electoral Rolls – Power of the Election Commission of India (ECI) to conduct state-wide Special Intensive Revision – The expression "for any constituency or part of a constituency" in Section 21(3) of the RP Act includes "many" or "all" constituencies if state-wide reasons like rapid urbanization, migration, and duplication pollute the rolls - The non-obstante clause in Section 21(3) frees the Commission from the ordinary procedural limitations of Section 21(2), allowing it to shape the course of revision as it thinks fit, provided it records cogent reasons. [Paras 35 – 50]

Constitution of India – Article 324 & Article 327 – Interplay between Constitutional Powers and Parliamentary Legislation – The legislative competence of Parliament under Article 327 and the ECI's mandate under Article 324 are complementary, not competing - Parliamentary legislation cannot extinguish or paralyse the core constitutional functions of the Commission - The Commission retains plenary authority to issue regulatory directions and fill vacuums where the law is silent, though it must act consistently with express statutory prohibitions. [Relied on: Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405; Sadiq Ali v. Election Commission of India, (1972) 4 SCC 664; All Party Hill Leaders' Conference v. Captain W.A. Sangma, (1977) 4 SCC 161; Kanhiya Lal Omar v. R.K. Trivedi, (1985) 4 SCC 628; In Re: Special Reference No. 1 of 2002, (2002) 8 SCC 237; Para 175-186]

Administrative Law – Doctrine of Proportionality – Legitimate Purpose and Least Restrictive Measure – ECI's order directing a Special Intensive Revision after a gap of over two decades (since 2003) satisfies the four-pronged proportionality test - The restoration of the accuracy and purity of electoral rolls is a legitimate purpose embedded in Articles 325 and 326 - House-to-house verification and documentary scrutiny bear a rational nexus to this goal - A state-wide systemic issue cannot be remedied by piecemeal constituency-specific revisions, making the comprehensive SIR necessary. [Relied on Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, (2023) 3 SCC 1; Paras 69 - 82]

Election Law – Presumption of Regularity of Existing Entries – Scope of Re verification – Enrolment in an electoral roll carries a rebuttable evidentiary presumption of validity under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, but it does not impose a blanket embargo on the ECI's power to conduct a systemic, inquisitorial re-verification exercise - A prior entry cannot be used as a shield to obstruct the Commission's constitutional mandate of systemic oversight. [Distinguished: Labu Babu Hussein v. Electoral Registration Officer, (1995) 3 SCC 100 Paras 111-125]

Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 – Rule 21A – Procedure for Deletion/Removal of Names – The safeguards of notice and hearing under Rule 21A are not violated by the SIR guidelines - While non-submission of the enumeration form results in provisional non-inclusion in the draft roll, final deletions are only made after the claims and objections stage, where the ERO conducts an enquiry, issues show cause notices for doubtful cases, and passes speaking orders subject to a two-tier statutory appeal. Substance of due process is preserved. [Paras 136-142]

Representation of the People Act, 1950 – Sections 16, 19 & 23(4) – Citizenship Act, 1955 – Section 9(2) – Scrutiny of Citizenship for Electoral Eligibility – The ECI is empowered to undertake a limited, prima facie enquiry into the citizenship status of an individual to satisfy itself of the baseline eligibility condition under Section 16 of the RP Act - There is a distinction between an administrative satisfaction for electoral purposes and a formal adjudication of status under the Citizenship Act - ECI's decision does not amount to a final declaration of non-citizenship - In cases of doubt, the ECI must refer the individuals to the Competent Authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955 for final adjudication within a reasonable timeframe - Aadhaar Card can be treated as a 12th identity document for registration under Section 23(4) of the RP Act but does not constitute proof of citizenship. [Paras 157-178]

Also read - Supreme Court Upholds Election Commission's Power To Conduct SIR Of Electoral Rolls, Says It Advances Free & Fair Elections

Case Title: ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ORS. Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA, W.P.(C) No. 640/2025 (and connected cases)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 549

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment