A troubling judgment and endorsement of the SIR

The judgment of the Supreme Court of India, delivered on May 27, 2026, on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, has thrown up many disturbing questions about the powers, the role and the conduct of the Election Commission of India (ECI) in the context of the exercise of its powers in the preparation and revision of electoral rolls.

Although this case is related to the operationalisation of the SIR in Bihar, the issues dealt with by the Court and its findings have far-reaching implications for the right of Indian citizens to be included in electoral rolls. In its 124-page judgment, the Court dealt with all the important points raised by the petitioners against the SIR but refused to concede even a single one of them. On the other hand, the Court accepted all the arguments made by the ECI and further elucidated them.

Revisiting electoral roll revision

When the SIR was begun in Bihar just a few months before the Assembly election in Bihar, in 2025, serious reservations were expressed about the advisability of undertaking such a comprehensive and intensive revision of the electoral rolls in such haste. Apart from the inexplicably compressed timeline for completing the intensive revision of the electoral rolls, serious questions were raised about the statutory backing for such an exercise. There have been a number of articles in this daily highlighting the ECI’s deviations from statutory provisions in the implementation of the SIR. So, in light of the Court’s judgment upholding the ECI’s actions and methods, it is useful to revisit the statutory and constitutional provisions governing electoral roll preparation and revision and assess the judgment accordingly.

Editorial | ​Validating flaws: on the Supreme Court and the SIR

Article 325 of the Constitution declares that there shall be one general electoral roll for every territorial constituency in the country and that no person shall be ineligible for inclusion in such a roll solely on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or any of them. Article 326 says that the elections to the Lok Sabha and the Assemblies shall be on the basis of adult suffrage — which means every citizen who is 18 years and above is entitled to be registered as a voter at any such election. The other condition for inclusion in the roll is that he should not be disqualified under the Constitution or any law. Article 327 empowers Parliament to make laws for dealing with all aspects of elections including the preparation of electoral rolls. Article 324 confers the power to prepare the rolls and conduct the elections on the ECI. Preparation of electoral rolls which includes revision is governed by the Representation of the People (RP) Act, 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. Section 21 of the RP Act deals with preparation and revision of the electoral rolls. Sections 21(2) and (3) which contained the framework of revision say in (a)(i)/(ii), electoral roll shall be revised before each general election to the Lok Sabha or the Assembly and before each by-election, (b) the roll shall be revised in any year if directed by the ECI; and Section 21(3) says that the ECI may do a special revision of the roll for any constituency or part of a constituency at any time after recording the reasons for such revision. Rule 25 of the Registration of Electors Rules says that the revision of the rolls under Section 21 (2) of the Act before the general election or by-election can be summary or intensive, which clearly implies that such revision just before the general election can be only summary considering the elaborate scheme of an intensive revision under the rules.

The framework

The question, then, is: under which category of revision does the SIR fall? The Court says that it is traceable to Section 21(3) which deals with a special revision in any constituency or a part of a constituency. But the clause does not permit an intensive revision but only a special revision. SIR is a special and intensive revision of the rolls. Intensive revision according to Rule 25 is done only under Section 21(2) and not 21(3) of the Act as the judgment claims. A careful reading of Sections 21(2) and (3) of the RP Act 1950 and Rule 25 of the Registration of Electors Rules 1960 would reveal that an intensive revision of the roll in a State can be undertaken only when the general election or by-election is not due. It is obvious that an intensive revision is not contemplated by the law when the elections are due because of the comprehensive nature of the revision which requires a much longer time to complete.

Now, as regards the special revision under Section 21(3), it is actually meant to be done in a constituency or a part of a constituency and not the whole State or the country. The claim made in the judgment that “any constituency” means all constituencies does not square with the context. The word “any” may mean ‘all’ in some contexts whereas it would mean ‘single’ in some other context. The words “or a part of constituency” following “any constituency” make it clear that the special revision is meant to be done only in a constituency or part of it. When intensive revision is clearly provided in Section 21(2) there is no need to provide the same in Section 21(3). Special revision may become necessary in some constituencies because of, say, the large-scale influx of people into that area from a neighbouring area. Special revision is done in a manner fixed by the ECI whereas intensive revision under Section 21(2) needs to be done as per the prescribed procedure.

The analysis above would show that the entire SIR exercise is being done under a wrong provision of law. In the States of Bihar, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and West Bengal, the SIR was done a few months before the Assembly election. Under Section 21(2)(a) read with Rules 25 only a summary revision was possible before the Assembly election. But the ECI went ahead with the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in clear deviation from the scheme of the law, resulting in the deletion of millions of voters from the electoral rolls without providing them any effective redress.

The issue of citizenship

The judgment grants great freedom to the ECI in the matter of determining the documents to prove citizenship. The crucial point is whether the ECI can determine what documents are required to prove citizenship. This is a function to be performed by the Home Ministry as it administers the law on citizenship. The ECI’s role is to verify citizen-related documents. What actually happened was that the ECI announced a list of documents and asked the voters to produce them. The ECI was simply usurping the role of the Union Home Ministry. It is extremely surprising that during the hearing the Supreme Court did not ask the Union Home Ministry to file an affidavit containing the list of documents required to prove citizenship. The Court has now conceded the ECI’s authority to determine the question of citizenship for the purpose of inclusion in or exclusion from the electoral rolls, while leaving the larger question of citizenship to the competent authority, namely the Ministry of Home Affairs. The Ministry of Home Affairs will now have to decide the cases of millions of Indian citizens who will never be able to vote in their lifetime and who will face numerous disabilities arising from the denial of citizenship, albeit on a tentative basis.

The Court has hitherto applauded the work done all these years by the ECI since its establishment. But the SIR judgment speaks about the “cumulative inaccuracies in the voters list” and the “structural deficiencies that pervaded the entire roll” in the past. It is a damning indictment of the preparation and the revision of electoral rolls done by the ECI in the past. The judgment need not have gone to such an extent in order to justify the SIR of 2025.

P.D.T. Achary is Former Secretary General, Lok Sabha