Author: Khushi Kohli
College: Maharaja Agrasen Institute Of Management Studies
To the Point
The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is a large-scale, evidence-based verification exercise undertaken by the Election Commission of India (ECI) to ensure that electoral rolls are accurate, current, and free of ineligible or duplicate entries. It is conducted under Article 324 of the Constitution read with Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (RP Act). The central legal tension lies between the ECI’s constitutional duty to secure free and fair elections through clean rolls and the citizen’s fundamental right to be included in the electorate without arbitrary exclusion.
Use of Legal Jargon
• Constitutional mandate: The obligation imposed on the ECI under Article 324 to superintend, direct, and control the preparation of electoral rolls and conduct of elections.
• Plenary power: The wide, residuary authority of the ECI under Article 324(1), operative only where parliamentary legislation does not occupy the field.
• Ultra vires: An act beyond the legal authority conferred by the Constitution or statute; petitioners alleged that SIR, as designed, was ultra vires the RP Act and Rules.
• Audi alteram partem: The rule of natural justice requiring that no person be adversely affected without a reasonable opportunity to be heard; implicated in deletion procedures.
• Procedural fairness: Compliance with statutory notice, hearing, and appeal mechanisms before deletion of names from the roll.
• Arbitrariness: State action lacking a rational basis or intelligible differentia, violative of Article 14.
• Presumption of eligibility: The legal principle that an elector once enrolled is presumed eligible unless lawfully displaced through prescribed procedure.
• Citizenship enquiry (limited): Verification for electoral purposes only; the ECI may inquire but cannot finally adjudicate citizenship, which lies with the competent authority under the Citizenship Act.
• Proportionality: The constitutional test requiring that state measures be rationally connected to a legitimate aim, not excessive, and balanced by adequate safeguards.
• Non-obstante clause: A statutory phrase (such as “notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2)”) that overrides other provisions to give a special power primacy.
The Proof
Constitutional and statutory framework
Article 324(1) vests in the ECI the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls and the conduct of all elections to Parliament and State Legislatures. Article 327 empowers Parliament to legislate on elections, including preparation of rolls, subject to the Constitution. The RP Act, 1950 operationalises this scheme: Section 21(2) provides for periodic revision of rolls, while Section 21(3) enables the ECI, “for reasons to be recorded”, to direct a special revision of the roll for any constituency or part thereof “in such manner as it may think fit”.
The Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 prescribe detailed procedures for draft publication, claims and objections (Forms 6, 7, 8), inquiry, and final publication, including Rule 21A on deletion of names on grounds such as death, migration, or ineligibility, with an obligation to give a reasonable opportunity to show cause before deletion on residence or entitlement grounds.
What SIR does in practice
The ECI’s SIR involves house-to-house enumeration by Booth Level Officers (BLOs), distribution and collection of pre-filled Enumeration Forms, publication of a draft roll, and a statutory window for claims and objections before finalisation. Deletions broadly cover deaths, permanent shifting, duplicate entries, and untraceable electors after repeated visits. Safeguards include prior intimation, recorded reasons for deletion, publication of draft rolls, appeal to the District Magistrate and then the Chief Electoral Officer, and deployment of Booth Level Agents nominated by political parties to verify entries.
In Bihar, the SIR began with an order dated 24 June 2025, treating the 2003 roll as a baseline and requiring electors not listed in 2003 to produce prescribed documents to establish eligibility. After publication of the draft roll, approximately 65 lakh electors stood excluded for non-submission of forms, prompting interim directions from the Supreme Court for transparency, wider document acceptance (including Aadhaar as a 12th document for identity), and facilitation of claims. The final roll published on 30 September 2025 contained 7.42 crore electors, and Assembly elections were conducted in November 2025.
The Bihar SIR litigation: factual matrix
The impugned order recorded that the last intensive revision in Bihar was conducted in 2003, and that over two decades, substantial changes in the electoral rolls had occurred on account of rapid urbanisation and large-scale migration. Clause 11 of the order treated the 2003 electoral roll, with 1 January 2003 as the qualifying date, as probative evidence of eligibility, unless rebutted. Clause 12 stipulated that any person not listed in the 2003 roll must produce one or more prescribed government documents to establish eligibility as an elector.
Clause 14 read with the accompanying SIR Guidelines required the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) or Assistant ERO to scrutinise eligibility in accordance with Article 326 and Sections 16 and 19 of the RP Act; where eligibility was doubtful, a show-cause notice was to be issued, a response considered, and a reasoned order passed. Appeals were provided to the District Magistrate under Section 24(a) and then to the Chief Electoral Officer under Section 24(b).
When the draft electoral roll was published in August 2025, nearly 65 lakh electors were excluded for failure to submit the required forms. Following scrutiny and subsequent additions, 21.53 lakh eligible electors were added, while 3.66 lakh names were ultimately deleted. The final electoral roll published in September 2025 recorded 7.42 crore electors, down from the initial 7.89 crore.
Abstract
This article examines the legality and constitutional propriety of the Election Commission of India’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, focusing on the Bihar exercise initiated in 2025 and upheld by the Supreme Court in 2026. It analyses the interplay between Article 324’s plenary supervisory power and the statutory regime under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. The central inquiry is whether SIR, as structured, advances the constitutional goal of free and fair elections without infringing the right to vote and the guarantee against arbitrariness under Article 14. Drawing on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India, (2026) 7 SCC 1, the article argues that SIR is constitutionally permissible only when it adheres to procedural fairness, limits citizenship scrutiny to electoral eligibility, and ensures robust safeguards against wrongful disenfranchisement.
Case Laws
Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India, (2026)
In a batch of writ petitions under Article 32, the Supreme Court examined challenges to the ECI’s SIR order for Bihar. Petitioners contended that Article 324 cannot override the RP Act and 1960 Rules, that Section 21(3) does not authorise a statewide intensive revision, and that the exercise was arbitrary, exclusionary, and procedurally unfair. They relied on Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405 and A.C. Jose v. Sivan Pillai, (1984) 2 SCC 656 to argue that Article 324 operates only in interstitial gaps and cannot act contrary to statute.
The Court upheld the validity of SIR, holding it traceable to Section 21(3) of the RP Act read with Article 324, and consonant with the constitutional imperative of free and fair elections. It clarified that while the ECI may conduct limited citizenship-related enquiries for electoral purposes, it cannot finally adjudicate citizenship; doubtful cases must be referred to the competent authority under the Citizenship Act. The judgment also underscored procedural safeguards: publication of deletion lists with reasons, acceptance of additional identity documents including Aadhaar (for identity, not citizenship proof), extended opportunities for claims, and assistance through legal services and political parties.
The Court framed four issues: (i) whether the ECI has power to conduct the SIR; (ii) whether the SIR is founded on a legitimate purpose and is proportionate; (iii) whether the procedure adopted is contrary to the RP Act and 1960 Rules; and (iv) whether the ECI is empowered to scrutinise citizenship status for roll maintenance. On the first issue, the Court affirmed that Article 324 vests the ECI with plenary power of superintendence over preparation of rolls, complementing rather than competing with Parliament’s law-making power under Article 327. Where legislation is silent or inadequate to meet emerging contingencies, Article 324 acts as a “reservoir of power.”
On the question of purpose and proportionality, the Court held that the SIR exercise served a legitimate constitutional purpose of ensuring inclusion of eligible voters as more than two decades had passed since the last intensive revision in 2003, during which migration, urbanisation, duplicate entries, and deceased voters had created systemic inaccuracies in the rolls. The Court found a rational nexus between house-to-house enumeration and accurate rolls, and noted that safeguards (including show-cause notices, appeals, claims and objections procedures, acceptance of Aadhaar for verification, and legal assistance for marginalised groups) adequately balanced the procedural burden.
On the validity of procedure, the Court found that SIR was validly grounded in Section 21(3) of the RP Act, which empowers the ECI to direct a special revision “in such manner as it may think fit.” The Court emphasised that this provision allows departures from ordinary summary revision procedures to address exceptional situations. It further held that safeguards were effectively built into the SIR through claims and objections processes, suo motu inquiries by Electoral Registration Officers, and issuance of show-cause notices prior to final deletion.
On citizenship inquiry, the Court clarified that the ECI is empowered to scrutinise the citizenship status of individuals for the purpose of maintaining electoral rolls, but this power is strictly limited in scope and consequence. A decision to exclude a person by the ECI only affects their entitlement to be on the electoral roll and their right to participate in the electoral process; it does not divest an individual of their citizenship claims, nor does it assume finality on their legal status as a citizen. The Court directed that persons whose names were deleted on account of the ECI being of the opinion that they are not citizens must be referred within four weeks to the Competent Authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955, for adjudication.
Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, (1978)
This precedent recognises the width of Article 324 but confines its residuary power to areas not occupied by parliamentary legislation. The SIR judgment harmonises this principle by treating Section 21(3) as the statutory anchor, with Article 324 supplying the overarching constitutional duty to ensure integrity of rolls.
A.C. Jose v. Sivan Pillai, (1984)
The Court in A.C. Jose held that where the Act and Rules occupy the field, the ECI cannot act in direct disobedience of their mandate. In SIR, the Court distinguished the situation: the impugned order did not negate any express statutory prohibition but operated within the statutory objective of revision, subject to the 1960 Rules’ safeguards.
Lal Babu Hussein v. Electoral Registration Officer, (1995)
This decision affirms that electors whose names appear on the roll enjoy a presumption of citizenship, which cannot be displaced except by following the procedure prescribed by law. The SIR framework, as refined by interim and final directions, seeks to honour this presumption by requiring notice, hearing, and reasoned orders before deletion, and by allowing claims even after initial deadlines.
Conclusion
The Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls is a constitutionally sanctioned mechanism to cleanse the electorate of deaths, duplicates, migrations, and ineligible entries, thereby strengthening the integrity of representative democracy. However, its legitimacy turns on strict adherence to procedural fairness and statutory safeguards. The Supreme Court’s 2026 judgment validates SIR under Section 21(3) of the RP Act and Article 324, while drawing bright lines: the ECI may verify eligibility for enrolment but cannot usurp the citizenship-adjudication function of the Ministry of Home Affairs; deletions must follow notice, hearing, and appeal; and documentation requirements must not be so onerous as to disenfranchise bona fide voters.
Going forward, SIR should be treated as an extraordinary, evidence-based exercise, deployed where summary revisions are demonstrably inadequate, and implemented with transparency, accessible facilitation, and robust oversight. Only then can electoral purification coexist with the fundamental right to vote and the constitutional promise of universal adult suffrage.
FAQ
1. What is Special Intensive Revision (SIR)?
SIR is a comprehensive, house-to-house verification exercise directed by the ECI to update and clean electoral rolls by adding eligible voters and removing deaths, duplicates, and ineligible entries.
2. Under which law is SIR conducted?
SIR is conducted under Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, read with the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
3. Can my name be deleted from the voter list without notice?
No. Rule 21A of the 1960 Rules requires the Electoral Registration Officer to publish a list of proposed deletions, give notice, consider objections, and provide a reasonable opportunity to show cause before deletion on residence or entitlement grounds.
4. Does SIR allow the ECI to decide who is a citizen?
No. The ECI may conduct limited enquiries for electoral eligibility, but final determination of citizenship lies with the competent authority under the Citizenship Act; doubtful cases must be referred there.
5. What documents can be used in SIR?
The ECI prescribes a list of acceptable documents; in Bihar SIR, the Supreme Court directed acceptance of additional documents including Aadhaar (as identity, not citizenship proof), EPIC, and ration cards to avoid wrongful exclusion.
6. Is there an appeal if my name is deleted or my claim is rejected?
Yes. An aggrieved person may appeal to the District Magistrate under Section 24(a) of the RP Act and Rule 27 of the 1960 Rules, and thereafter to the Chief Electoral Officer under Section 24(b).
7. What was the Supreme Court’s view on the 2003 baseline?
The Court held that using the 2003 roll as a baseline was rational because it was prepared after an intensive revision and reflected a rigorous verification exercise; the classification was founded on an intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to roll integrity.
8. Can a person wrongly deleted challenge the ECI’s decision?
Yes. All persons domiciled in Bihar whose names were erroneously deleted on grounds such as absence, death, migration, or duplication may assail the decision by way of judicial review.
