Supreme Court upholds SIR exercise as an advancement towards free and fair elections

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (May 27, 2026) upheld the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls as an exercise done by the Election Commission of India (ECI) in furtherance of the Constitutional principle of free and fair elections.

A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant dismissed the petitioners’ view that SIR was a surreptitious, backdoor move to conduct citizenship screening in the name of cleaning up the electoral roll off aliens.

Bihar SIR Supreme Court hearing updates – May 27, 2026

The petitions had accused the ECI of arbitrarily assuming powers to “determine citizenship” while overriding limitations clearly prescribed in parliamentary laws, rules and its own manual without providing “any good reason”.

The Supreme Court judgment upholding the constitutionality of the Bihar SIR would have an impact on further rounds of SIR. The second phase of the SIR, covering 51 crore voters in 12 States and Union Territories — including in West Bengal, Tamil Nadu and Assam — had commenced even as the Bihar challenge was pending in the Supreme Court.

Backed by Article 324 of Constitution

The judgment pronounced by the Chief Justice in open court on Wednesday (May 27) said the ECI was empowered under Article 324 of the Constitution to examine citizenship to verify inclusion in the electoral roll. This verification was not the final word on the citizenship of a person. The ECI, if it finds that a person did not have the necessary documents and did not pass the enquiry, could forward the case to the competent authorities in the Central government for adjudication under the Citizenship Act.

​Juggernaut rolls on: Editorial on the third phase of SIR of electoral rolls

The court said SIR, though it stretched the modalities of electoral roll revision under the Representation of the People Act and the Registration of Electors Rules, cannot be invalidated. It was done in an exigency but was not “manifestly excessive”. The procedural safeguards of revision were complied with.

The court rejected the arguments raised by the petitioners, including the Association for Democratic Reforms, represented by advocates Prashant Bhushan and Neha Rathi, that SIR ipso facto reversed the burden of proof of citizenship on the voters.

The court said the variety of indicative documents, including Aadhaar, was a reasonable demand and part of a structured regime devised for verifying voters. The court reiterated that SIR must continue to maintain a calibrated balance in the choice of indicative documents.

Effective intervention

The Bihar SIR hearings had seen the Supreme Court effectively intervene to make the massive exercise more inclusive. One of the effective judicial interventions was to include Aadhaar as the 12th in the list of 11 ‘indicative’ documents that voters could file as proof of their identity or residence.

The judgment said any decision taken during the SIR was subject to judicial review. The Bihar SIR hearings had seen the court remind the ECI that “the degree of transparency and access to information form the hallmarks of an open democracy”.

The apex court had pushed the poll body to publish the names and details of voters added to the final electoral roll in the Bihar SIR. The final list in Bihar had shown the total tally of eligible voters in the State as 7.42 crore. The court had directed the Election Commission to publish a district-wise, booth-level searchable list of the nearly 65 lakh voters who were purged from the draft roll along with the exact reasons for their deletion from the list.