Author: Snehasree Parida, School of Law, Centurion University
Abstract
The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, which was activated by the Election Commission of India (ECI) effective on 24 June 2025, points towards a major development in Indian electoral law. This article identifies the cause of such development and further endeavours to analyze the statutory and constitutional cause of the same, beginning from the constitutional aspect of Article 324, Constitution of India, to the statutory aspect of Section 21 (3), Representation of the People Act, 1950. The article monitors the potential threat to the ‘Supreme Court’ from the hazard posed to it that was brought about by the petition in the event of Association for Democratic Reforms & Ors. V. Election Commission of India, where the petitioners allegedthe SIR was ultra vires and prohibited the disenfranchisement of millions of “new citizens” and secretly investigated “citizenship,” remained a prominent area of implications of acluster of antithetical terms in the provision. Further, it also mentions the effect of the SC’s unanimous judgment on 27thMay 2026 by insistently enclosing a 5-0 for the prima facie component of the constitutionally debated, justified, and constitutionally allowed sovkonomy of the ECI. In the end,the article critically examines the consequences of the judgment upon the make-up of Article 324, Section 21(3), tothe framing of the SIR, electoral rolls, citizenship, and democracy in India.
To the Point
The Election Commission of India (ECI) conducted a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in the State of Bihar in 2025, which we believe is one of the most significant electoral exercises in India since the Constitution. Although India is a ‘progressively moving society ’, how meaningful this progress is politically is evident from the number of voters, assumed to be entitled to vote, in this state: 7.90 crore. Using these electoral rolls, the electorates were to be updatedand enumerated by a house-to-house canvass. This indicated the conclusions reached in the process of preparing the electoral roll for the 205th Bihar Assembly Election. This update and the possible deletion and inclusion of electors, through the use of door-to-door procedures, had consequently 65, 00,000 electors, including 3, 66,555 (inclusions) of ineligible electors were removed from the electoral rolls, draft, and 21,53,651 electors (enrolments) were added to the electoral roll in this state, and there are 7.42 crore enrolled electors in the state. The final election rolls process or selection process was challenged in the Supreme Court of India in the Association for Democratic Reforms & Ors. V. The Election Commission of India and the Supreme Court held it as a constitutionally valid, proportionate, and within the scope of electoral power and legislative authority of the ECI under Art 324 of the Constitution and Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
Use of Legal Jargon
Much of the discussion surrounding the Bihar SIR is couched in constitutional and statutory language that demands a legal knowledge of the subject. The Constitution of India under Article 324 entrusts the Election Commission with the “superintendence, direction and control” of electoral roll preparation. Under Article 325, a common general electoral roll is mandated for each territorial constituency in India without any discrimination of any kind on the grounds of religion, race, caste or sex. The election is based on Universal Adult Suffrage for which every citizen of India who has attained 18 years of age is entitled to be registered.
The law applicable is the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (RPA). Under the RPA, s. 21(1) and (2) require re-delineation of the electoral rolls before every general election. Section 21(3) gives the ECI the power to “direct a special revision of the electoral roll for any constituency or part of the constituency in such manner as it may think fit at any time whether before or after a general election, if it is satisfied that special revision is necessary and on recording reasons therefore. Section 16 defines the rules for disqualifications of voters. Section 23 prescribes the procedure for the Electoral Registration Officer to verify eligibility criteria. Section 24 provides the appellate procedure against decisions of the electoral registration officer.
The procedural mechanism of updating the rolls is elaborately described in the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. Under Rule 25 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, the electoral rolls were to be updated “integrally or summarily.” In the instant matter, the SIR invoked the doctrine of proportionality, a constitutional principle that requires a state’saction to be proportional to the legitimate law it advances. The petitioners invoked the doctrine of ultra vires by pleading that the ECI had gone beyond the powers provided to it underthe statute. The Court, in its reply, invoked the doctrine of constitutional trust vested in the Election Commission as a constitutional authority.
The Proof
The Bihar Special Intensive Revision (SIR) was a consequence of an Election Commission of India (ECI) direction, dated June 24, 2025, which recorded that the last general revision in Bihar occurred in 2003, over two decades ago. The directions flagged as reasons for an intensive revision are: “due to spiralling urbanization, increasing migration, the entry of a new generation of young voters, unreported deaths and the inclusion of names of foreign illegal immigrants”.
SIR successfully enrolled 77,895 BLOs, and 20,603 were made for new polling stations. More than 1 lakh volunteers were pressed into service to aid the weaker sections/voters. All recognized political parties nominated 154,977 BlAs, which further rose to 1600215. The gigantic exercise included covering 243 Assemblies and a total of 7,89,69,844 existing voters. Enumeration Forms were distributed door-to-door with a collection figure of 57.48 % during the first 15 days.
The irregularity was most painful when 6.5million voters were invalidated from the draft part, and the revised electoral roll was published on 01 August 2005, when it was only 72.4million voters, excluding about 366,000 invalid voters and incorporating 2.153 million of the newly added voters,leaving a judicial electoral roll of 74.2 million on 30 September 2005.
The Association for Democratic Reforms represented some petitioners, who challenged in SIR as an ultra vires and as constitutionally impermissible fact it would create a mass disenfranchisement, a noxious citizen duty, and an unfair inquiry of denizenship. The petition recited that the 11 documents of evidence already imposed by the Election Commission of India had stolen the ECI, was the only draft for the National Register of Citizens scheme, and presented many analogies with the ECI Act, the course of delivering corporator to Citizen to sub-registrar of Births and Deaths. Senior Counsel A. M. Singh Vip brought forth the express written-up version of Section 21(3) of the 1950 Representation of People Act providing the enumerations of the mixtures about the advantages for the, Partying and the candidate‘s title of, quick urbanization or inter-districtmovements.
Case Laws
1. Association for Democratic Reforms & Ors. V. Election Commission of India (2026) SCC OnLine SC (forthcoming)
Facts: A batch of writ petitions challenged the constitutional validity of the ECI’s order dated June 24, 2025, directing a Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar. The petitioners, including Association for Democratic Reforms, argued that the SIR lacked statutory authorisation, violated the RPA and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, risked mass disenfranchisement, and constituted an impermissible inquiry into citizenship.
Issues: The Supreme Court framed four questions for determination:
• Whether the ECI had the power to conduct an exercise such as the SIR?
• Whether the exercise pursued a legitimate constitutional purpose and satisfied the test of proportionality?
• Whether the procedure adopted violated the RPA and the 1960 Rules?
• Whether the ECI could examine questions relating to citizenship while revising electoral rolls?
Held: The Division Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi unanimously upheld the SIR. The Court held that Section 21(3) of the RPA specifically contemplates “special revision” in exceptional situations, which is materially distinct from ordinary revision under Section 21(2). 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)”. The Court further held that the SIR was undertaken to preserve the “integrity, accuracy and credibility” of electoral rolls, which form the foundation of the democratic process. Rejecting the challenge, the Bench observed that the SIR was not a process to subvert but to secure the mandate of free and fair elections.
Ratio Decidendi: The ECI is empowered, in the exercise of its constitutional mandate under Article 324 read with Section 21(3) of the RPA, to undertake a special intensive revision of electoral rolls. Such an exercise is constitutionally valid if it pursues a legitimate purpose (electoral purity), satisfies the test of proportionality, and does not violate statutory provisions. The ECI may undertake a limited inquiry into citizenship for the purpose of satisfying itself as to eligibility for inclusion in the electoral roll.
2. N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, NamakkalConstituency (1952) AIR 1952 SC 64
Facts: The Returning Officer rejected the appellant’s nomination paper. The appellant filed a writ petition under Article 226 before the Madras High Court challenging the rejection, which was dismissed.
Held: The Supreme Court held that Article 324 of the Constitution vests in the Election Commission the superintendence, direction and control of the entire electoral process, including the preparation of electoral rolls. The Court emphasised that the Constitution has created a specialised body to deal with all matters relating to elections, and the Courts should not ordinarily interfere in the electoral process.
Relevance: This case establishes the constitutional primacy of the Election Commission in electoral matters and was cited by the ECI in the Bihar SIR litigation to support its contention that Article 324 confers plenary power over the preparation and revision of electoral rolls.
3. Mohan Singh v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978)(1978) 1 SCC 405
Facts: The validity of the Election Commission’s power to order a revision of electoral rolls was challenged.
Held: The Supreme Court held that the power of the Election Commission under Article 324 is not confined to the conduct of elections but extends to all matters incidental thereto, including the preparation and revision of electoral rolls. The Court observed that the Commission must have the power to ensure that the electoral rolls are accurate and up-to-date, as defective rolls would vitiate the entire electoral process.
Relevance: This case reinforces the expansive interpretation of Article 324 and was relied upon by the ECI to argue that the SIR was within its constitutional mandate.
4. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) AIR 1975 SC 2299
Facts: The constitutional validity of certain amendments to the election law was challenged.
Held: The Supreme Court held that democracy is a basic feature of the Constitution and that free and fair elections are an essential attribute of democracy. The Court emphasised that the purity of the electoral process is of paramount importance.
Relevance: This case underscores the constitutional significance of electoral purity, which the Supreme Court invoked in upholding the Bihar SIR as an exercise aimed at preserving the integrity of the democratic process.
Conclusion
The special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India, marks a pivotal moment in Indian electoral law. The judgment clarifies critical constitutional issues such as the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) authority under Article 324, the interpretation of Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act (RPA), and the constitutional legitimacy of extensive electoral roll revisions.
The court emphasizes that the ECI is a constitutional authority with robust powers, allowing it to conduct a “special revision” that differs significantly from regular processes, thus granting it essential operational flexibility. Nonetheless, the drastic removal of 6.5 million voters, representing 8.2% of the electorate in one revision, prompts significant concerns regarding procedural safeguards and the potential for voters to face wrongful disenfranchisement. Critics liken the SIR to a “backdoor NRC,” highlighting fears over linking electoral roll updates to citizenship verification.
The judgment applies the doctrine of proportionality, which necessitates vigilance given its impact on millions. While the court trusts the ECI’s competence, it underscores the necessity for robust procedural protections and effective appeal mechanisms against widespread disputes. The SIR raises federal balance issues, initiated by the central ECI in a state with upcoming assembly elections, suggesting significant ramifications for local political dynamics.
The judgment applies the doctrine of proportionality, which necessitates vigilance given its impact on millions. While the court trusts the ECI’s competence, it underscores the necessity for robust procedural protections and effective appeal mechanisms against widespread disputes. The SIR raises federal balance issues, initiated by the central ECI in a state with upcoming assembly elections, suggesting significant ramifications for local political dynamics.
FAQs
Q1. What is the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls?
The SIR is a comprehensive revision of electoral rolls undertaken by the Election Commission of India, involving door-to-door enumeration and verification of each elector’s eligibility. In Bihar, the SIR was initiated on June 24, 2025, covering nearly 7.90 crore electors across 243 Assembly Constituencies.
Q2. What constitutional provisions empower the Election Commission to conduct the SIR?
The SIR is traceable to Article 324 of the Constitution, which vests in the Election Commission the “superintendence, direction and control” of the preparation of electoral rolls, read with Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, which empowers the ECI to direct a “special revision” of electoral rolls.
Q3. Why was the SIR conducted specifically in Bihar?
The last intensive revision in Bihar was conducted in 2003. The ECI cited “rapid urbanisation, frequent migration, young citizens becoming eligible to vote, non-reporting of deaths and inclusion of the names of foreign illegal immigrants” as necessitating an intensive revision ahead of the Bihar Legislative Assembly elections in November 2025.
