Democracy not only story of voting but identifying who has right to vote: Supreme Court in SIR verdict

Prashant Bhushan, advocate for petitioner in the SIR matter, reacts to SC judgment

VIDEO | Delhi: On the Supreme Court verdict on SIR in Bihar, advocate for petitioner, Prashant Bhushan says, "Today the SC has given its judgment, virtually upholding everything that the Election Commission was contending in the SIR case, and has virtually given a blank cheque to… pic.twitter.com/XpcoapB9yD

— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) May 27, 2026

Advocate and TMC MP Kalyan Banerjee reacts on SC judgment

#WATCH | Delhi: On Supreme Court upholding ECI's decision to undertake SIR of voter rolls that started in Bihar, Advocate and TMC MP Kalyan Banerjee says, 'The justice which has been delivered in the SIR matter is applicable in case of Bihar. That is not all-India. In this… pic.twitter.com/VDoB4xN3r6

— ANI (@ANI) May 27, 2026

CJI: In the event the competent 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, extinct or in duplication may also assail the decision of the Commission by way of judicial review.

CJI: We have issued a further direction 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 is directed to refer such cases within four weeks to the competent authority under the Citizenship Act for adjudication of their citizenship claim. The competent authority shall take the necessary decision in accordance with law, preferably before the next parliament, assembly, local body election, whichever is earlier, after giving notice and an opportunity of hearing to the deleted individual concerned.

CJI: In cases where the Commission is not satisfied that a person meets the statutory condition for inclusion in the electoral roll, it would be incumbent upon the Commission 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. 

The impugned exercise was founded upon a legitimate and constitutionally grounded purpose, namely the restoration of the accuracy, completeness, and integrity of the electoral roll. Having regard to the nature of the problems sought to be addressed, the scale of the exercise undertaken, and the procedural safeguards incorporated during the..., the measures adopted by the commission cannot be said to be disproportionate to the object sought to be achieved. While the 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 power of the commission to undertake a special intensive revision...The deletions effected pursuant to the SIR exercise cannot be said to be contrary to the procedure prescribed under Rule 21 A 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. The documentation regime prescribed by the Commission requires a considered exercise of its administrative discretion in furtherance of the constituted mandate.

We are unable to hold that the documentation framework is arbitrary or violative of statutory scheme. The Commission is empowered in the exercise of its constitutional mandate to undertake a limited inquiry into the citizenship for the purpose of satisfying itself as to eligibility for inclusion in the electoral roll. Such an inquiry does not amount to a determination of citizenship in the strict sense, and in any action taken pursuant thereto, is confined to electoral consequences alone. The consequence of such a determination is correspondingly limited. It affects the individual entitlement to be included in the electoral roll and thereby their right to participation in the electoral process.

CJI: Importantly, the entirety of this exercise remains amenable to judicial review, thereby ensuring that the inquiry is conducted in accordance with law and within the bounds of the procedural fairness. We have no hesitation in adding that this assessment is necessarily prima facie and contextual, where the material furnished by an individual does not inspire confidence or give rise to doubt. The commission is within its authority to decline enrollment or to initiate action for deletion strictly in accordance with law. Such action, however, must be understood in its proper perspective. It does not amount to a declaration that the individual is not a citizen of India. It merely reflects the commission's inability to be satisfied for electoral purposes that the statutory conditions are met. 

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.

CJI: We have dealt with the validity of the documents regime prescribed by the commission as part of enumeration exercise.After dealing with those eleven documents which they said and after rejecting the inclusion of Aadhaar card through our order passed in detail, then we have said we have bestowed our careful consideration upon the rival submissions advanced on this issue.

The challenge, in essence, is directed not merely at the nature of the documents prescribed, but at the authority of the commission to structure a documentation regime as part of an intensive verification exercise. We are unable to accept the contention that the prescription of such a regime in the facts of the present case is arbitrary or dehors the statutory framework. In that context, the prescription of the set of documents operate as a tool to ensure administrative consistency and evidentiary reliability. It is neither practicable nor desirable for the verification process to be left entirely unguided or subjective. It is true that Form six, as prescribed under the Registration of Electoral Rules sets out a framework of documentation.

The commission therefore retains a degree of residual authority to formulate and adopt a documentation framework suited to the exigencies of a special intensive revision. Such authority, however, is not unbounded. In devising such a framework, the commission must remain cognizant of the existing statutory scheme, and any departure therefrom must be informed by a rational nexus to the objects so to be achieved. The formulation of the documents regime must thus reflect a calibrated balance in drawing from the statutory framework while adopting it when necessary to effectively serve the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and integrity of the electoral rolls.

A perusal of the documentation framework suggests that the list of documents is indicative of materials that are ordinarily available to electorals, electors. The expansion of the list as compared to earlier exercises also demonstrates an attempt to widen the range of acceptable proofs rather than to restrict it.

CJI: On the third question, namely whether the SIR is contrary and violative of provisions of the Representation of the People Act,  and the Registration of the Electors Rule, we have said that having held that the SIR is legally tenable and pursues a legitimate purpose, we now proceed to examine whether the procedure adopted by the Commission is in derogation of the provisions of the RPA.

This question also we have sub-classified in three category. We have said that three principal grounds have been raised before us by the petitioners, namely one, the electors whose names are already entered in the electoral roll are entitled to a presumption of citizenship, which cannot be disclosed save in accordance with procedure established by law.

Two, that the procedure contemplated under Rule 21 A of the Registration of Electors Rule, has not been followed. And three, that the documents prescribed by the Commission for the enumeration of the electors, coupled with the exclusion of previously accepted documents, are arbitrary and without any reasonable justification. Then we have analyzed these three categories. We have also extensive dealt with Lal Babu Hussain.

We have ultimately concluded that we are also unable to accept the submission that the undertaking of an intensive verification exercise ipso facto reverses the burden of proof in a manner impermissible in law. The calling upon electors to furnish supporting material in course of such an exercise does not amount to the negation of the presumption.

Rather, it reflects the procedural mechanism through which the commission seeks to reaffirm or where necessary, correct existing entries. The presumption continues to operate, but it does not obviate the possibility of verification.

And after that, we have said we are thus of the considered view that while inclusion in the electoral roll gives rise to a presumption of validity, such presumption is rebuttable and it cannot be construed as imposing a blanket embargo on the powers of the commission to undertake a special intensive revision.

It must also be borne in mind that the statutory framework does not mandate a rigid or similar procedural format for all situations of deletion. What it insists upon is fairness in action. The SIR guidelines, in incorporating notice pre-publication, individualized inquiry in case of doubts, a speaking order, and a right of appeal satisfy this requirement. To construe rule 21A of the 1960 rules as requiring a uniform pre-decisional notice at the very threshold irrespective of the structure of the exercise would be read the provision in unduly restrictive manner. We are therefore to conclude that the deletions effected pursuant to the SIR cannot be said to be contrary to the procedure prescribed under Rule 21 A of 1960 Rules

CJI: We are therefore of the opinion that the SIR as conducted satisfy the requirements of proportionality to the measures adopted bear a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved, are not manifestly excessive, and are accompanied by sufficient procedural safeguards to prevent arbitrary exclusion.

In view of the foregoing analysis, we hold that the exercise was founded upon a legitimate and constitutionally grounded purpose, namely the restoration of accuracy, completeness, and integrity of the electoral rolls. We further hold that 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.

CJI: Coming to question number two, whether the included SIR is founded on a legitimate purpose and whether the measures adopted by ECI are proportionate to the object sought to be achieved. We have considered this aspect in detail and We found that this question needs to be divided in four sub-questions.

In view of the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, the following four questions arise for consideration with respect to the proportionality of the impugned SIR exercise. First is whether the impugned SIR is founded upon a legitimate purpose consistent with the constitutional and statutory mandate of the commission.

Second is whether the means adopted by the commission bear a rational nexus and the object sought to achieve.

Third is whether the measures undertaken were necessary in that there are no alternative measures that can achieve the same purpose with a lesser degree of limitation.

Fourth, is, there a fair balance between the importance of achieving the proper purpose and the limitation it places upon the constitutional right?

Then all these four issues we have to examined in detail. I reach to a conclusion to say that the proportionality of a measure must ultimately be assessed not in the abstract, but in the manner in which it is implemented. A process that may be perceived as exclusive by some can, through appropriate safeguards, be rendered constitutionally compliant in execution. In the present case, the cumulative effect of the safeguards introduced both by the Commission and pursuant to the directions of this court, we have before that dealt with all interim directions issued from time to time and pursuant to the directions of this court has been to strike a balance between the need for electoral integrity and the imperative of inclusion.

CJI: The reasons recorded by the Commission, namely the passage of more than two decades since the last intensive revision, large scale additions and deletions over the period, rapid urbanization, migrations, and the resulting possibility of incomplete or defective entries, are plainly directed toward preserving that foundational integrity.

The SIR, therefore, is not a process designed to subvert the established procedure, but one intended to secure the constitutional mandate of free and fair elections. For the aforesaid reason, we hold that the included SIR 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.

Court is addressing the issue-Whether ECI has power to conduct SIR 

CJI: In our considered opinion, the SIR does not supplant the RP Act or the 1960 rules. It rather breathes life into the constitutional mandate of Article 324 through the precise statutory conduct provided by Section 21 [3]. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Commission has acted in breach of an express statutory provision. So long as the Commission acts within the bounds of the statute, records reasons for recourse to the special power, and does not transgress any express prohibition contained in the Act or the rules, the exercise cannot be struck down as ultra vires merely because it adopts a procedure different from that applicable to ordinary revision of electoral rules.

We are equally satisfied that in its object and design, the impugned SIR bears a direct nexus to the constitutional goal of a free and fair election. Free and fair elections do not rest merely upon the mechanics of polling. They equally depend upon the integrity, accuracy, and purity of the electoral roll, which forms part of the foundation of the democratic process.

Court lists out issues which required analysis

CJI: After the referring to the rival contentions from both sides, then we have said that having traversed the sequence of events as they emanated, the contentions put forth on behalf of the parties as well as material on record, we are of the considered that the following issues require analysis. First is whether the Election Commission of India has power to conduct the SIR.

Second, whether the impugned SIR is founded on a legitimate purpose, and if so, whether the measures adopted by the Election Commission are proportionate to the objectives so to be achieved.

Third is whether the procedure adopted by Election Commission in conducting the impugned SIR is contrary to or in violation of the provisions of the Representation of People Act 1950 and the Regis-Registration of Electoral Rules 1960.

The fourth question is whether in the exercise of its constitutional mandate of preparation and maintenance of electoral rolls and in observance of the statutory conditions governing such registration, the Election Commission of India has the power to scrutinize the citizenship status of persons seeking inclusion or continuation in the electoral roll.

Pronouncement begins

CJI Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi have assembled for the pronouncement

Bench presides

Bench to preside soon

Last year, the NGO, Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) had approached the Supreme Court challenging the Election Commission exercise by calling it unconstitutional and warning that it will “disenfranchise lakhs of voters”.

One of the key questions that the top court will determine is whether ECI has the power to conduct the Special Intensive Revision.

Four months after reserving the verdict, the Supreme Court is set to pronounce its judgment on pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.