Supreme Court backs Bihar SIR exercise, upholds ECI’s powers to purify electoral rolls

Four questions before the Court

Reading the judgement, CJI Surya Kant identified four issues for determination: 

1. Whether the ECI had the power to conduct an exercise such as the SIR? 
2. Whether the exercise pursued a legitimate constitutional purpose and satisfied the test of proportionality?  
3. Whether the procedure adopted violated the RPA and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 (1960 Rules)?
4. Whether the ECI could examine questions relating to citizenship while revising electoral rolls?

Authorised by statute

The Bench held that Section 21(3) of the RPA specifically contemplates “special revision” in exceptional situations. The “special revision” was materially distinct from ordinary revision under Section 21(2) read with Rule 25 of the 1960 Rules. “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,” the Court held. The Bench observed that the SIR did not “supplant” the statutory framework but instead, “Breathes life into the constitutional mandate under Article 324 within the precise statutory contours provided by Section 21(3).” It held that SIR furthered the mandate of Article 324, and does not violate provisions of the RPA.

SIR secures free and fair elections

The Bench held that the SIR was founded upon a legitimate and constitutionally grounded purpose, namely the restoration of accuracy, completeness and integrity of the electoral rolls. It broke down the issue into four parts: whether the exercise pursued a legitimate purpose; whether the means adopted bore a rational nexus to that purpose; whether less restrictive alternatives existed; and whether a fair balance had been maintained between electoral integrity and constitutional rights.

The Court held, “Proportionality has to be assessed not in the abstract, but in the manner in which it is implemented.” It noted that safeguards introduced by the ECI, along with directions issued by the Court during the hearings, ensured multiple avenues for participation, correction and redress. “A process that may initially appear exclusionary can, through appropriate safeguards, be rendered constitutionally compliant in execution,” the Court observed. The Bench ultimately held that the measures adopted by the ECI were neither arbitrary nor “manifestly excessive.”

“It is conducted on grounds of restoration of accuracy to the electoral rolls. The measures adopted by the ECI cannot be said to be disproportionate,” the Court held..

Lal Babu Hussein no shield against verification

The petitioners had argued that voters whose names already existed on electoral rolls were entitled to a presumption of citizenship, relying on Lal Babu Hussein v Electoral Registration Officer (1995). The Bench rejected the contention, adding that it had extensively considered Lal Babu Hussein. While inclusion in electoral rolls creates a presumption of validity, that presumption is rebuttable and does not prevent the ECI from undertaking verification. “Calling upon electors to furnish supporting material in the course of such an exercise does not amount to negation of the presumption,” CJI Surya Kant stated. The Court clarified that Lal Babu Hussein emphasised procedural fairness in deletion proceedings but did not render electoral entries immune from scrutiny.

Rule 21A survives within SIR framework

The petitioners had argued that the SIR violated Rule 21A of the 1960 Rules, which governs deletion of names from electoral rolls. Rejecting this challenge, the Court held that the safeguards embedded in Rule 21A, including notice, inquiry, hearing and reasoned determination, were preserved “in substance” within the SIR framework, although distributed across stages such as enumeration, publication of draft rolls and claims-and-objections proceedings. The Court added that the statutory framework did not mandate a rigid or singular procedural format but instead required “fairness in action.”

ECI’s document regime passes legality test

The Bench rejected the challenge to the documentation framework prescribed by ECI during the SIR process. The SIR exercise had shortlisted 11 documents for persons to provide to be included in the electoral roll. The Court held that any verification exercise necessarily required a structured documentation regime to ensure administrative consistency and evidentiary reliability. It observed that while Form 6 under the 1960 Rules governed ordinary revision under Section 21(2), the ECI retained authority to devise a documentation framework suitable for an intensive revision under Section 21(3). The Court noted that the list of acceptable documents had evolved and expanded during the exercise, showing an attempt to widen the range of acceptable proofs rather than to restrict it. Notably, after much pushback by the ECI, the Court had directed the inclusion of Aadhaar card as the 12th document. “The documentation prescribed by the ECI, the classification of documents is based on intelligible criteria having a direct nexus with the objective of ensuring the integrity of the electoral rolls,” the Court held.

Electoral scrutiny, not citizenship adjudication

On whether the ECI could examine citizenship while preparing or revising electoral rolls under Section 16 of the RPA, the Bench held that the ECI was empowered to undertake a limited inquiry into citizenship for electoral purposes. It clarified that such an exercise did not amount to a final determination of citizenship under the Citizenship Act, 1955. The Court explained, “It merely reflects the Commission’s inability to be satisfied, for electoral purposes, that the statutory conditions stand fulfilled.” The Court held that where the ECI was not satisfied about a person’s eligibility for inclusion in electoral rolls, it would be incumbent upon the ECI to refer the matter to the competent authority under the Citizenship Act for adjudication in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Court directed ECI to refer within 4 weeks all cases where names had been deleted from the 2003 electoral rolls on the ground that the individuals were found not to be citizens.

The competent authority under the Citizenship Act was directed to conclude the adjudication process before the next Vidhan Sabha or local body elections, whichever is earlier, after issuing notice and granting an opportunity of hearing. If such individuals are ultimately found to be citizens, their names must be restored to the electoral rolls.

The Bench also directed that persons domiciled in Bihar whose names may have been wrongly deleted on the ground of absence, despite continuing to reside within the state, would be entitled to submit representations before election authorities, which must be considered and decided in accordance with law.