Election Commission Empowered To Conduct SIR Of Electoral Rolls; Can Conduct Limited Enquiry Into Citizenship: Supreme Court

"Constitutional power of superintendence, direction, and control over the preparation of electoral rolls, vested in the Commission, necessarily carries with it the authority to verify, scrutinise, and, where necessary, revisit the basis upon which entries have been made," Supreme Court, in a landmark judgment dated May 27, 2026, upheld the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) authority to conduct a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, including a limited scrutiny of the citizenship status of electors.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that the power of superintendence under Article 324 of the Constitution is an "inherently expansive" authority designed to ensure the purity of the democratic process. The Court noted that while the Commission cannot override express statutory prohibitions, it retains the mandate to step into "vacuous areas" to maintain an accurate and inclusive electoral roll.

The present controversy arose from an ECI order dated June 24, 2025, directing a Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar, where the last such exercise was conducted in 2003. A batch of writ petitions, led by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), challenged the order, contending it would lead to large-scale arbitrary disenfranchisement. The Petitioners argued that the ECI lacked the power to conduct a statewide revision under Section 21(3) of the RP Act and could not legally scrutinize the citizenship of persons already listed on the roll.

The primary question before the Court was whether the Election Commission has the power under Article 324 and Section 21(3) of the RP Act to conduct a statewide Special Intensive Revision. The Court was also called upon to determine whether the Commission is empowered to scrutinize the citizenship status of persons seeking inclusion or continuation in the electoral roll, and whether such an exercise violates the proportionality standard.

Interplay Between Article 324 and Article 327

The Court began by analyzing the constitutional relationship between the Commission’s powers and Parliamentary legislation. It rejected the argument that the ECI’s power evaporates once Parliament legislates on a subject. The bench noted that Articles 324 and 327 are not "competing repositories of power" but are designed to operate in tandem.

Court Clarifies Scope Of Article 324

The bench emphasized that Article 324 is a "reservoir of power" that supplements the law where necessary to effectuate the constitutional mandate of free and fair elections. While the Commission must act in conformity with valid laws made by Parliament, the Court held that "parliamentary legislation cannot be deployed to extinguish the Commission's overriding constitutional mandate."

"The Commission cannot don the garb of Article 324 to circumvent statutory provisions... but constitutional power survives, but must be exercised consistently with the law."

Interpretation Of Section 21(3) Of The RP Act

Dealing with the statutory source of the power, the Court examined Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. The Petitioners argued that the term "any constituency" restricted the ECI to specific, isolated revisions. However, the Court adopted a purposive construction, holding that "any" can be read as "many" or "all," enabling a statewide exercise if cogent reasons are recorded.

ECI Vested With Wide Procedural Discretion

The Court highlighted that the non-obstante clause in Section 21(3) disengages the special revision from the procedural impediments of ordinary revisions under Section 21(2). By using the phrase "in such manner as it may think fit," the legislature intentionally conferred a wide procedural latitude upon the Commission to shape the revision process according to emerging exigencies.

Presumption Of Validity Is Rebuttable

A major point of contention was the Petitioners' reliance on Lal Babu Hussein v. Electoral Registration Officer, claiming that existing entries in the roll carry an "enduring presumption of eligibility." The Court clarified that while an entry carries a presumption of regularity under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, it is an "evidentiary presumption" and not a rule of substantive law that forecloses enquiry.

Inclusion In Roll Not A Perpetual Guarantee Against Scrutiny

The bench observed that electoral rolls are "evolving instruments" that must capture shifting realities of residence and eligibility. It held that the Commission acts as a constitutional authority discharging systemic oversight, and the presumption of validity cannot be employed as a "shield to obstruct the exercise of constitutional powers" aimed at ensuring the roll's integrity.

"The presumption of validity attached to an entry at a given point in time cannot be treated as a perpetual guarantee against scrutiny."

Scrutiny Of Citizenship Status By ECI

The Court addressed the sensitive issue of whether the ECI can examine the citizenship of electors. The Petitioners argued this was the exclusive domain of the Ministry of Home Affairs under the Citizenship Act. However, the Court drew a sharp distinction between a "formal adjudication of citizenship" and an "administrative satisfaction as to eligibility."

Administrative Satisfaction vs Judicial Adjudication

The bench held that since Section 16 of the RP Act explicitly disqualifies non-citizens, the ECI cannot maintain a valid roll without satisfying itself that electors meet the citizenship threshold. This enquiry is limited to electoral purposes and does not amount to a final declaration of status. If the Commission is not satisfied, it must refer the matter to the competent authority under the Citizenship Act for final adjudication.

"Any action taken pursuant thereto is confined to electoral consequences alone... it does not operate to divest the individual of claims of citizenship."

Proportionality Of The Intensive Revision

Applying the four-pronged proportionality test, the Court found the SIR to be justified. It noted that the 22-year gap since the last intensive revision in Bihar was a "cogent justification." The Court held that summary revisions over two decades could accumulate inaccuracies that "incremental corrections" might fail to address.

Judicial Safeguards Infused Into The Process

The Court noted that the initial concerns regarding documentation and transparency were mitigated by various interim judicial interventions. These included the inclusion of Aadhaar as a 12th document for identity and the direction to publish the list of excluded electors with reasons. The Court concluded that the process, as ultimately implemented with these safeguards, struck a fair balance between electoral integrity and the imperative of inclusion.

The Supreme Court dismissed the challenge to the Special Intensive Revision, holding that the exercise was traceable to Section 21(3) of the RP Act read with Article 324. The bench directed that in cases where names were deleted on suspicion of non-citizenship, the ECI must refer such cases to the Competent Authority under the Citizenship Act within four weeks for a final decision.

Date of Decision: 27 May 2026