Judgement delivered, paradox prevails: every voter a citizen, but what is the fate of 51.8 million excluded?

On May 27, 2026, the Supreme Court upheld the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise undertaken by the Election Commission of India (ECI) in Bihar and later across the 12 more states, holding that the exercise neither stands in direct conflict with the Representation of the People Act and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, nor detracts from the constitutional imperative of free and fair elections. Petitions against first, the hasty SIR launched and conducted in Bihar and thereafter in Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, Puducherry and Kerala had highlighted gross anomalies in the ECI’s capabilities and motives while conducting the exercise. The 124-page verdict however reads like a sanitised appraisal of what was, indeed, a fractious and contested process. The Court finally concluded that the SIR is traceable to Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act read with Article 324 of the Constitution and is intended to advance the very objective, which Part XV of the Constitution seeks to protect, namely, the conduct of free, fair and credible elections through accurate electoral rolls.

The verdict brings to a close one of the most significant constitutional controversies concerning electoral administration in recent years. While the judgment conclusively answers the question of whether the Election Commission possesses the authority to undertake a SIR, it leaves several substantive concerns unresolved. The challenge before the Court was never confined merely to the legality of electoral roll revision. Rather, it centred upon whether an exercise ostensibly intended to identify eligible electors had, in practice, transformed into a process requiring already registered voters to re-establish their entitlement to remain on the electoral roll, thereby blurring the distinction between verification of electoral eligibility and an unregulated (by law or authority) scrutiny of citizenship.

While upholding the ECI’s powers, the Division Bench simultaneously issued a series of directions intended to regulate the consequences of deletions arising from the SIR exercise. Yet it is within these directions themselves that some of the most difficult constitutional questions continue to persist.

The sudden introduction and expansion of SIR and the deletion of 5.18 crore electors

One of the most consequential yet insufficiently examined aspects of the SIR exercise is its unprecedented scale and the magnitude of voter deletions that followed its implementation across multiple States. No previous exercise of its kind under Election Law or Practice has ever had such intent or result. It is there then that this verdict –by failing to engage in the crucial gaps and issues in implementation highlighted by the multifarious Petitioners—substantively falters.

The result is this: While the Supreme Court has, after rigorous hearings and several interim orders, ultimately upheld the constitutional validity of the SIR framework and accepted the Election Commission of India’s justification (that the exercise was intended to enhance the accuracy, completeness and integrity of electoral rolls). The moot question of what necessitated the adoption of an extraordinary and intensive verification mechanism when the Representation of the People Act, 1950, the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, and the established system of continuous revision already provides for detailed procedures for the addition, correction and deletion of names from electoral rolls remains unanswered.

2023-2024, two years prior to the launch of the Bihar SIR in June 2025 were also marked by related issues that directly impact on the autonomy and functioning of the Election Commission of India (ECI) a hitherto constitutional authority that enjoyed broad respect and acceptance. The present Regime’s overturning of a Supreme Court of India (SCI) final judgement on the need for wider choice and representation (including that of the Chief Justice of India-CJI) in selection of the CEC etc. is one such. The other is the huge accountability crisis in counting methods and transparency by the ECI around the Lok Sabha Polls of 2024, reports around which may be read here and here. Given the outcry by citizens groups and Opposition parties around “Vote Chori” and manipulation during and post 2024 LS polls (including the Haryana, Maharashtra state elections), the ECI even arbitrarily decided to amend its own Rules in ensuring availability of the CCTV footage during storage and counting to citizens and candidates.

The SIR 2-25-2026 was therefore conducted under a shroud of allegations and scrutiny. Thereafter follows the May 27 judgement of the apex court that in a sense obliterates these background developments.

The judgment recognises the Commission’s constitutional authority under Article 324 and Section 21(3) of the Act, yet neither the Court nor the Commission appears to have fully explained why existing statutory mechanisms were considered inadequate or incapable of addressing concerns relating to migration, duplication, deaths or ineligible entries. The absence of such justification becomes particularly significant when the practical outcome of the exercise has been the near arbitrary removal/deletion of more than 5.18 crore (51.8 million!!) electors across thirteen states/jurisdictions.

Impact of SIR across the States

The Bihar exercise, initiated through the Election Commission’s notification dated June 24, 2025, became the foundation upon which the SIR model was subsequently replicated in twelve other States and Union Territories. According to the available figures, the cumulative impact of these exercises resulted in the deletion of approximately 5.18 crore names from electoral rolls covering an electorate of nearly 50.99 crore voters.

The scale of these deletions was unprecedented in the history of electoral roll revision in India. Uttar Pradesh alone witnessed deletions exceeding 2.05 crore electors, while West Bengal recorded deletions of approximately 83.86 lakh names. Tamil Nadu saw nearly 74 lakh deletions, Gujarat approximately 68 lakh, Madhya Pradesh 34.25 lakh, Rajasthan 31 lakh and Chhattisgarh around 25 lakh. Even smaller jurisdictions such as Goa, Puducherry, the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Lakshadweep recorded deletions running into significant proportions of their total electorate.

These figures raise an important constitutional question: When a bureaucratic exercise hurriedly undertaken in the name of electoral ‘purification’ results in the such mass exclusion of more than five crore (50 million) registered voters, should not the burden of transparency and accountability correspondingly become more exacting and higher?

Bihar as the testing ground of SIR

The Bihar experience illustrates the complexity of this concern. Before the commencement of the SIR exercise, Bihar’s electoral roll consisted of approximately 7.89 crore registered electors. Following the intensive revision process, the draft electoral roll published by the Election Commission contained only 7.24 crore electors. This meant that nearly 65 lakh individuals who had previously appeared on the electoral roll were absent from the draft roll. The Commission attributed a substantial portion of this reduction to the non-submission or non-collection of Enumeration Forms during the verification process. However, the omission of such a large number of previously enrolled electors at the draft stage immediately generated concerns regarding the practical consequences of a documentation-based verification exercise conducted within compressed timelines and under challenging administrative conditions.

The Commission subsequently issued its final press release on September 30, 2025 announcing the completion of the Bihar SIR. According to the data disclosed therein, 3.66 lakh names were permanently deleted after detailed statutory verification, while 21.53 lakh eligible electors were either restored or added through Form-6 applications and the claims-and-objections process. As a result, the final electoral roll stood at approximately 7.42 crore electors. At first glance, the Commission presented these figures as evidence of a successful correction mechanism that enabled genuine electors to re-enter the electoral database. However, a closer examination of the numbers reveals a significant discrepancy.

The pre-SIR electoral roll contained approximately 7.89 crore electors, whereas the finalised roll contained 7.42 crore electors. This represents a net reduction of approximately 47 lakh electors. Yet the numerical explanation offered by the Commission does not fully account for this decline. If 3.66 lakh names were permanently removed after verification and 21.53 lakh electors were subsequently added, the total documented movement in the database amounts to 25.19 lakh electors. Even after accounting for these figures, an unexplained variance of approximately 21.81 lakh electors remains between the pre-revision electorate and the final electoral roll. Put differently, the available data does not mathematically reconcile with the final published electoral database.

This discrepancy is not merely statistical. It goes to the heart of the transparency and accountability concerns that surrounded the SIR exercise from the beginning. Electoral rolls are the foundational instruments through which the constitutional guarantee of universal adult suffrage under Article 326 is operationalised. Consequently, when millions of names disappear from electoral rolls during a revision exercise, a clear and comprehensive explanation becomes essential. The available public figures explain certain categories of additions and deletions, but they do not adequately account for the entire difference between the pre-revision and post-revision electorate. In the absence of a detailed category-wise reconciliation identifying how and why the remaining electors ceased to form part of the final database, the figures disclosed by the Commission appear incomplete and internally inconsistent.

The issue becomes even more significant because the revised Bihar electoral roll was not merely a provisional administrative exercise. It became the basis for the conduct of the Bihar Legislative Assembly elections held in November 2025, with the results declared on November 14, 2025. Specifically put, is a state election, where as many as 47 lakh (4.7 million) voters did not cast their franchise because they were not given a chance to prove their electoral status, legitimate in the eyes of the Law, Courts and Constitution?

Consequently, the constitutional questions raised before the Supreme Court were not being examined in an abstract or prospective setting; they concerned an electoral framework that had already been implemented and utilised for a completed democratic exercise. The Court’s eventual decision therefore validated not merely the legal authority to undertake a SIR but also the inefficient and partisan exercise with practical consequences flowing from that exercise.

Yet the larger constitutional concern remains unresolved. The Election Commission consistently maintained that the purpose of the SIR was to ensure that every eligible citizen was included in the electoral roll while simultaneously removing ineligible, duplicate, shifted or deceased voters. However, the public discourse and the statistical outcomes reveal that the exercise was perceived primarily through the lens of deletion rather than inclusion. The overwhelming –and heavily partisan and unaccountable–administrative focus appeared to be directed towards verifying existing entries and identifying names for exclusion. There was comparatively less emphasis on institutional mechanisms designed to assist vulnerable citizens in retaining their electoral status or navigating documentation requirements. For many petitioners and civil society organisations, the concern was not merely the removal of ineligible names but the possibility that genuine electors could be excluded because of absence of access–procedural, technical or documentation-related difficulties.

It is this broader context that explains why the challenge to the Bihar SIR generated such intense public debate. The controversy was not only confined to the Election Commission’s authority to revise electoral rolls. Rather, it concerned the manner in which that authority was exercised, the scale of deletions that followed, the burden imposed upon existing electors to re-establish their eligibility, and the absence of complete public clarity regarding the final numerical outcomes.

Even after the Supreme Court’s judgment of May 27 upholding the legality of the SIR framework, these factual and statistical questions remain largely unanswered. The Court resolved the narrow, legal issue of constitutional powers; it did not fully address the concerns arising from the moral, constitutional and real-life consequences of an exercise that ultimately resulted in the deletion of more than 5.18 crore (51.8 million) electors across the country and left significant discrepancies in the publicly available electoral data. In a democracy founded upon universal adult franchise, those questions are not peripheral. They fundamentally point to the relationship between electoral integrity and electoral inclusion, the right to Universal Adult Franchise, integral to a living, participatory Democracy. On grounds of ‘prevention of illegible voters/voting’, the fundamental and key constitutional question of not ever disallowing any eligible voter from his Right to Vote has been consciously blurred if not obliterated.

Contradictory position on citizenship and deleted voters

One of the most significant aspects of the judgment lies in the Court’s treatment of citizenship-related scrutiny undertaken during the SIR exercise.

In paragraph 186(f) of the judgement, the Court held that the Election Commission is empowered to undertake only a limited enquiry into citizenship for the purpose of satisfying itself regarding eligibility for inclusion in the electoral roll. The Court expressly clarified that such an enquiry does not amount to a determination of citizenship in the strict legal sense and that any action taken pursuant to such an exercise is confined exclusively to electoral consequences. According to the Court, the consequence of such a determination is correspondingly limited. It affects an individual’s entitlement to remain on the electoral roll and consequently their participation in the electoral process, but it does not divest the individual of citizenship nor foreclose adjudication by the competent authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955.

However, the subsequent directions appear to create a degree of tension with this formulation.

In paragraph 186 (g), the Court directed that where the Commission is not satisfied that a person fulfils the statutory conditions for inclusion in the electoral roll, it would be incumbent upon the Commission to refer such an individual to the competent authority within the Central Government for adjudication in accordance with law. The Court further clarified that any deletion effected on this ground shall remain subject to the outcome of such adjudication.

If this is genuinely so, and the Commission possesses neither the authority nor the required expertise/wherewithal to determine citizenship, can or should elections be conducted before final and thorough adjudication of all those excluded, given the hastily conducted SIR that excludes staggering numbers of Voters/Electors?

Without linking the final adjudication process under a badly conducted SIR to actual future conduct of elections, the Court has given lent its approval to a basically incomplete and flawed process. Besides, the practical consequence of this direction is significant. Although the Court repeatedly emphasises that the Commission itself does not determine citizenship, the Commission’s dissatisfaction regarding a person’s eligibility may nevertheless become the trigger for a formal citizenship adjudication before another authority. Consequently, while the Election Commission may not be exercising citizenship jurisdiction in the strict legal sense, its findings can initiate a process that ultimately culminates in a determination of citizenship status.

The issue becomes even more pronounced in paragraph 186(h), where the Court specifically directed that all cases involving persons whose names had been deleted from the 2003 electoral roll on the basis of the Commission’s opinion that they were not citizens must be referred within four weeks to the competent authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955. The competent authority was directed to decide such matters after providing notice and an opportunity of hearing and, preferably, before the next Parliamentary, Assembly or Local Body election, whichever occurs earlier.

The Court further directed that if the competent authority ultimately concludes that the deleted individuals are citizens, their names shall be restored to the electoral roll. When and if that happens, what of the Denied Right to Vote in all previous elections until the process is completed/conducted?

Significantly, however, the judgment remains silent on the converse situation.

The directions clearly prescribe the consequences where the competent authority determines that the individual is a citizen. Restoration to the electoral roll follows as a matter of course. However, the judgment does not elaborate upon the legal consequences that would follow if the competent authority were to hold that the individual is not a citizen. The judgment neither identifies the statutory mechanism governing such a situation nor discusses the broader legal implications arising from such a finding.

The judgment therefore resolves the question of institutional competence but leaves unresolved the apprehension reflected in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) notification dated June 24, 2025. The notification provides that where the Election Registration Officer (ERO) or Assistant Election Registration Officer (AERO) entertains doubts regarding the eligibility of a proposed elector—whether due to non-submission of requisite documents or otherwise—a suo motu inquiry may be initiated, followed by the issuance of notice requiring the individual to show cause as to why his or her name should not be deleted from the electoral roll. Upon completion of field verification and examination of documentary material, the ERO/AERO is empowered to decide upon inclusion in the final electoral roll and is required to pass a reasoned speaking order in each case. Significantly, the notification further directs EROs to refer cases involving suspected foreign nationals to the competent authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955, while authorising AEROs to independently exercise the powers of the ERO under Section 13C(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. Consequently, although the Court has affirmed that the Election Commission’s enquiry does not amount to a determination of citizenship, concerns persist regarding the practical operation of a framework in which electoral scrutiny may, in certain cases, culminate in processes closely connected with questions of citizenship status.

Lal Babu Hussein and the presumption of validity of existing electoral registration

A central plank of the challenge to the SIR exercise was the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Lal Babu Hussein and Others v. Electoral Registration Officer, (1995) 3 SCC 100. In Lal Babu Hussein, the Court was dealing with disputes relating to electoral registration in which questions of citizenship directly arose. Recognising the serious consequences associated with exclusion from electoral rolls, the Court laid considerable emphasis on procedural fairness, adherence to natural justice and independent application of mind by electoral authorities.

The Court directed that the officer conducting the enquiry must entertain all forms of evidence, documentary or otherwise, that the affected person seeks to produce. The affected individual must be afforded a meaningful opportunity to rebut any material relied upon against them. The enquiry was characterised as quasi-judicial in nature, requiring fairness, objectivity and reasoned decision-making. The Court further directed that election authorities must consider the provisions of the Constitution, the Citizenship Act and all related legal provisions before arriving at a conclusion. It also quashed restrictions imposed by the Election Commission on the consideration of certain documents and emphasised that evidentiary value must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Most importantly, the Court underscored that authorities must conduct themselves in a manner consistent with natural justice and free from preconceived notions.

The significance of Lal Babu Hussein lies not merely in its procedural safeguards but in its recognition that inclusion in an electoral roll carries a presumption of validity. The petitioners challenging the Bihar SIR relied heavily upon this principle. Their contention was that once a citizen has already been included in the electoral roll through a legally recognised process, the burden should not casually shift onto that individual to once again establish eligibility through a fresh and intensive verification exercise.

The Supreme Court, however, distinguished Lal Babu Hussein from the Bihar SIR.

According to the Court, Lal Babu Hussein was decided in the context of individual adjudicatory proceedings concerning specific disputes, whereas the Bihar SIR constituted a systemic and inquisitorial exercise undertaken across the electorate in furtherance of the Commission’s constitutional mandate. Consequently, the Court held that while inclusion in the electoral roll undoubtedly gives rise to a presumption of validity, such presumption remains rebuttable and cannot operate as a blanket embargo upon the Commission’s authority to undertake a Special Intensive Revision.

This distinction forms a critical component of the judgment. However, it simultaneously raises a broader constitutional question. If inclusion in an electoral roll generates a presumption of validity, what practical protection does that presumption provide when millions of electors are subjected to fresh verification through a statewide exercise? While the Court recognises the existence of the presumption, the judgment substantially limits its practical effect by permitting large-scale re-examination of already enrolled electors.

Citizenship by presumption, not by documents: the unresolved core of the SIR debate

One of the most significant yet insufficiently examined aspects of the Bihar SIR litigation concerns the nature of citizenship verification itself. Throughout the proceedings, the Election Commission justified the exercise on the ground that electoral rolls must contain only eligible citizens, while the Supreme Court ultimately held that the Commission is empowered to undertake a limited enquiry into citizenship for electoral purposes.

However, the larger difficulty lies in the fact that Indian citizenship law does not prescribe a single, universally accepted document that conclusively establishes citizenship in every circumstance. Unlike identity verification, which may be undertaken through documents such as Aadhaar, citizenship is ordinarily established through a combination of statutory presumptions, factual circumstances, birth records, lineage, residence histories and legal provisions contained in the Citizenship Act, 1955. Consequently, the entire SIR exercise appears to have proceeded on a presumption of citizenship rather than on the basis of any definitive citizenship document recognised uniformly under law.

This becomes evident from the categories of documents accepted during the SIR process. Aadhaar, for instance, is fundamentally a document of identity and residence; it is not a proof of citizenship. Similarly, documents such as ration cards, bank passbooks, school certificates, board examination certificates, property records or welfare-related documents may establish the existence, residence or identity of an individual during a particular period, but none of them independently constitute proof of Indian citizenship. Even birth certificates, which are often treated as foundational documents, do not by themselves establish citizenship in every case, particularly because citizenship by birth in India is governed by different statutory conditions depending upon the date of birth and the status of parents under the Citizenship Act. In that sense, the controversy surrounding SIR was never merely about the production of documents but it was about the legal assumption that citizenship could be inferred through a documentation framework despite the absence of any statutory provision prescribing a definitive citizenship document.

A departure from established electoral practice

The controversy is further accentuated by the fact that the SIR exercise marked a substantial departure from the traditional process of electoral roll maintenance. Historically, electoral registration in India has operated on the basis that inclusion in an existing electoral roll carries a presumption of validity unless specific grounds for deletion are established through the procedure prescribed under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. The Supreme Court itself acknowledged this principle by recognising that inclusion in the electoral roll creates a presumption of validity, though one that is rebuttable. Yet the SIR framework effectively required millions of already enrolled electors to re-establish their eligibility through fresh documentation and verification procedures.

The contrast with earlier exercises becomes particularly relevant in light of the experience of Assam. The National Register of Citizens (NRC) process in Assam was conducted under a unique statutory and historical framework, involving specific legacy documents, electoral roll references dating back to 1951 and a legal architecture shaped by the Assam Accord. The documents accepted in the NRC process were tailored to that specific context. By contrast, the Bihar SIR exercise adopted a different framework altogether, while simultaneously rejecting reliance upon certain forms of prior electoral inclusion that had historically been treated as relevant indicators of eligibility.

Foreigners’ tribunals and the limits of analogy

Pertinently, comparisons were frequently drawn with the Foreigners Tribunals functioning in Assam. However, such analogies are not straightforward. The Foreigners Tribunal system emerged from a distinct historical and statutory context linked to immigration concerns in Assam and derives authority from specialised legal provisions applicable in that region. There is presently no equivalent nationwide mechanism automatically applicable to citizenship disputes arising from electoral revision exercises in other States.

Consequently, while the Court’s directions contemplate referral to a competent authority, they do not identify whether any existing institutional structure is capable of handling such disputes on a large scale. Nor do they explain how citizenship determinations are expected to be completed within the timeframe contemplated by paragraph 186(h), particularly when citizenship questions often involve complex inquiries into birth, descent, migration, residence and statutory status extending across decades.

The missing context behind the Bihar SIR

Any assessment of the Supreme Court’s verdict must necessarily be situated within the broader actual, on-ground, reality/factual context in which the Bihar SIR was conceived and implemented. According to the Commission, the exercise was intended to ensure that every eligible citizen was enrolled, no ineligible voter remained on the rolls and entries relating to deceased, shifted or duplicate electors were removed.

The notification stated that the Commission would scrupulously adhere to the constitutional and statutory framework governing electoral eligibility, particularly Article 326 of the Constitution and Section 16 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. Article 326 guarantees elections based upon adult suffrage, while Section 16 identifies circumstances under which an individual may be disqualified from registration as an elector, including non-citizenship, unsoundness of mind and disqualification arising from electoral offences.

The Commission invoked Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act as the source of its authority. It further stated that the exercise represented the first intensive revision of Bihar’s electoral rolls since 2003 and was necessary to preserve the integrity of electoral rolls in light of rapid urbanisation, migration, demographic changes, underreporting of deaths and concerns regarding the presence of foreign nationals.

To implement the exercise, Booth Level Officers were directed to conduct extensive house-to-house verification. Existing electors were required to complete Enumeration Forms and provide supporting documents. Electoral Registration Officers and Assistant Electoral Registration Officers were entrusted with processing claims and objections before final publication of the revised rolls.

Although the stated objective was to ensure inclusion of all eligible voters, the implementation of the exercise generated widespread concerns from civil society organisations, political parties and election law scholars. Critics questioned the compressed timeline, the documentary requirements and the practical feasibility of requiring millions of electors to complete the process within a matter of weeks. These concerns ultimately formed the foundation of the constitutional challenge that reached the Supreme Court.

The significance of this background cannot be understated. The legal controversy surrounding the Bihar SIR did not arise merely because a revision of electoral rolls was undertaken. It arose because the revision was conducted through an extraordinary and unprecedented methodology that fundamentally altered the manner in which existing electors were required to establish their continued presence on the electoral roll.

The full judgement dated May 27, 2026 can be read here

Related

SC greenlights SIR, upholds ECI’s power to revise electoral rolls

“Inside the SIR”: Booklet flags ‘mechanical disenfranchisement’ in electoral roll revision

VFD’s rebuttal of the Fadnavis’ Claims on Electoral Manipulation Allegations