SC says SIR process constitutional, legally sound

The Supreme Court on Wednesday gave its stamp of approval to the Election Commission's contentious Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, ruling that the exercise was both constitutionally valid and legally tenable. A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant found no merit in opposition claims that the process amounted to backdoor citizenship verification.

The judgment, delivered after the court reserved its verdict on January 29, effectively closes a prolonged legal battle that had seen petitions from opposition leaders, civil rights organisations and activists challenging the SIR conducted in Bihar last year.

Constitutional authority firmly established

The SC made clear that the Election Commission, as a constitutional body, possesses explicit authority under Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act to undertake special revisions of electoral rolls. The judgment noted that the ECI's exercise "breathes life into the constitutional mandate" without overstepping statutory limits.

"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 bench ruled, according to court documents.

The observation proved critical in dismantling petitioners' arguments that the SIR operated outside the commission's legal framework. Significantly, the court held that adopting a different procedure in "exceptional circumstances" does not violate constitutional or statutory provisions.

What the SIR exercise achieved in Bihar

When the SIR began in Bihar on June 24, 2025—the first such exercise in the state since 2003—it aimed to expunge duplicate, shifted or fraudulent voters while adding newly eligible citizens. The first phase wrapped up by July 25 with 99.8% coverage, involving forms collected from 72.4 million voters.

The final electoral roll, released on October 1, 2025, showed significant changes. Bihar's voter count declined by 6 per cent to 74.2 million from the earlier 78.9 million. The exercise identified 2.234 million deceased voters, 6.85 million duplicate registrations and 3.644 million voters who had shifted locations.

In absolute numbers, 6.929 million names were struck off while 2.153 million new names were added. Geographically, changes varied sharply. Patna district recorded a net gain of 163,600 voters, rising to 4.815 million from 4.651 million. Conversely, Saran saw its voter roll shrink by 224,768, dropping to 2.9 million from over 3.1 million.

Document requirements refined during process

Initially, the SIR process accepted only 11 documents for voter verification. However, following the Supreme Court's direction on September 8, Aadhaar was included as the 12th document. The court observed that while Aadhaar functions as an identity document rather than proof of citizenship, its inclusion served electoral identification purposes effectively.

This mid-course correction addressed concerns from petitioners and marginalised communities who argued that stringent document requirements could prevent genuine voters from exercising their franchise.

Citizenship question put to rest

Petitioners, including opposition figures Manoj Jha, Yogendra Yadav and Mahua Moitra, alongside civil society groups like the Association for Democratic Reforms and PUCL, had contended that the SIR effectively transformed the Election Commission into a citizenship verification body—a responsibility they argued rested with the government, not the poll panel.

The Supreme Court found no such overreach. Lawyers representing the ECI had argued that citizenship checks were conducted solely for electoral purposes and carried no bearing on formal citizenship determination. The judgment accepted this distinction.

"We are equally satisfied that object sought to be achieved by SIR bears direct link to constitutional goal of free and fair elections," the bench noted.

Opposition criticism persists despite ruling

Despite the Supreme Court's validation, opposition parties remain unconvinced. They argue the timing—the SIR began shortly before Bihar elections—raised questions about intent. Several opposition leaders have questioned why a revision exercise wasn't conducted after the Bihar polls rather than in haste beforehand.

The opposition also contends that elections held in Bihar since 2003 cannot suddenly be deemed flawed merely because voter verification became "necessary" last year. This argument, however, found no traction in the court's reasoning.

The SIR process has since expanded to Kerala, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal and Puducherry, where it has concluded. Operations continue in Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat and Rajasthan, where the election commission's work remains ongoing.