The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls being carried out by the Election Commission of India (ECI) in Bihar and other States, holding that the poll body has the authority to undertake such an exercise to ensure free and fair elections.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi said that accurate and credible electoral rolls are central to the democratic process.

“SIR advances the constitutional imperative of free and fair elections. Free and fair elections do not rest merely upon the mechanics of polling. They fundamentally depend upon the integrity, accuracy and credibility of the electoral rolls,” the Court observed.

The Bench accepted the reasons given by the ECI for launching the exercise, noting that more than four decades had passed since the last intensive revision and that large-scale migration, urbanisation and repeated additions and deletions in voter lists justified a fresh verification drive.

The Court also clarified the extent of the ECI’s power to examine citizenship during the revision process. It held that the Commission can look into questions relating to citizenship only for the limited purpose of deciding whether a person’s name should remain on the electoral roll.

At the same time, the Court made it clear that the ECI cannot make a final declaration on a person’s citizenship status.

“The consequence of such a determination is limited to electoral purposes,” the judgment said, adding that any final decision on citizenship would still lie with the competent authority under the Citizenship Act.

The Bench said that if the material submitted by a voter raises doubts or does not inspire confidence, the ECI would be within its powers to refuse enrolment or initiate deletion proceedings in accordance with law.

Importantly, the Court directed the ECI to refer within four weeks all cases where names were deleted from the 2003 Bihar electoral rolls on citizenship grounds to the competent authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955. The authority has been asked to complete the process before the next Assembly or local body elections after giving affected individuals an opportunity to be heard.

The Court further said that people whose names may have been wrongly deleted due to absence, despite continuing to reside in Bihar, can approach election authorities through representations.

Rejecting allegations that the SIR process was arbitrary or unconstitutional, the Bench said the exercise contains adequate safeguards such as notice, inquiry, speaking orders and a right to appeal.

It also held that the presence of a person’s name in earlier electoral rolls does not create a permanent immunity from future verification.

“The measures adopted bear a reasonable nexus to the objective sought to be achieved and are accompanied by sufficient procedural safeguards to prevent arbitrary exclusion,” the Court said.

The case arose from multiple petitions filed against the Bihar SIR exercise, including by the Association for Democratic Reforms and the National Federation for Indian Women. The petitioners had argued that the process could lead to arbitrary deletion of voters and disenfranchise large numbers of citizens.

The ECI, however, defended the revision exercise as necessary to maintain clean and accurate electoral rolls ahead of upcoming elections.