SC Rules SIR Valid But Not Final Word on Citizenship: Article 324, RPA & Voter Roll Verification Explained

Meaning and nature of the exercise: The Special Intensive Revision is a special, door-to-door exercise undertaken by the Election Commission of India (ECI) to completely re-verify and rebuild the electoral roll (voter list) of a constituency from scratch, rather than merely adding new voters and deleting obvious cases as in a routine annual "summary revision." In an "intensive" revision, Booth Level Officers (BLOs) physically visit households, distribute enumeration forms, and require electors to establish their eligibility afresh. The word "Special" indicates that it is conducted outside the regular annual cycle, usually because the rolls have not been intensively revised for a long time.

The 2002–2003 baseline: In the current round, the ECI used the last intensively revised roll as the "cut-off" baseline. For Bihar this was the 2003 electoral roll; for most other states the baseline fell between 2002 and 2004. Voters already present in that baseline roll (and their descendants) were treated as verified and did not need to submit fresh documents — in Bihar, roughly 6.5 crore of the 7.9 crore electorate fell in this category. Those not in the baseline roll were required to establish ancestral linkage by furnishing documents tracing back to a person already listed.

Stated objective: The ECI's purpose was to purify the rolls by removing entries of dead voters, persons who had permanently migrated, duplicate registrations across constituencies, and ineligible persons including foreign illegal migrants, since more than four decades had passed since the last intensive revision in many states.

Origin of the dispute: The ECI announced the SIR for poll-bound Bihar on 24 June 2025. Petitioners — civil society organisations like the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), political leaders and activists — challenged it, fearing that a massive re-verification just before elections, with a demanding documentation requirement, could disenfranchise genuine voters, especially the poor, migrants and marginalised groups who lack documentary proof of ancestry.

The "NRC-like" apprehension: The petitioners' central fear was that, by examining whether a person was a citizen during voter verification, the EC was effectively running a citizenship-determination exercise resembling a National Register of Citizens (NRC). They argued that deciding citizenship is exclusively the Union Government's function under the Citizenship Act, 1955 and the Allocation of Business Rules, not the EC's.

The constitutional question framed: The core legal questions were — (a) does the EC have the power to conduct SIR; (b) was the exercise proportionate and legally justified; (c) did it violate the Representation of the People Act, 1950; and (d) can the EC scrutinise citizenship while revising rolls.

Article 324 — superintendence of elections: Article 324 vests in the Election Commission the power of "superintendence, direction and control" of the preparation of electoral rolls and the conduct of all elections to Parliament and State Legislatures. The Court held that revising and cleaning electoral rolls falls squarely within this constitutional mandate, and that maintaining accurate rolls is central to democratic integrity.

Article 324 versus Article 327: The petitioners argued that Article 324 is only a "gap-filler" and cannot override the detailed scheme laid down by Parliament in the RPA. The Court disagreed, reasoning that Article 327 — which empowers Parliament to make election laws — itself opens with the words "subject to the provisions of this Constitution." This means parliamentary law operates within the constitutional framework and cannot override the EC's core Article 324 powers.

Representation of the People Act, 1950: The Court read Article 324 together with Section 21(3) of the RPA, 1950, which permits the EC to direct a special revision of the electoral roll for any constituency. This statutory hook anchored the SIR firmly in law.

The proportionality test: Because the right to vote is now treated as more than a mere statutory right (see below), the Court applied the proportionality test — examining whether the measure had a legitimate aim, a rational nexus to that aim, and adequate safeguards. It held: "The process that may initially appear exclusionary can, through appropriate safeguards, be rendered constitutionally compliant," and concluded the SIR met the proportionality requirement.

Citizenship and the right to vote: Under Article 326, elections are based on universal adult suffrage available to "every person who is a citizen of India" and is not less than 18 years of age. Mirroring this, Section 16 of the RPA, 1950 disqualifies a non-citizen from being registered in the electoral roll. Therefore, the Court reasoned, checking whether an applicant is a citizen is an unavoidable, built-in part of preparing a lawful electoral roll — it is not an external NRC bolted onto the process.

The crucial distinction — eligibility versus status: The Court drew a careful line between two different things. The EC may form an "administrative satisfaction" for the limited purpose of including or excluding a name on the roll. But this is not a "final adjudication" of whether a person is, in law, a citizen of India. As the Bench put it, exclusion "does not amount to a declaration that the individual is not a citizen of India" — it merely reflects the EC's inability to be satisfied, for electoral purposes, that the legal conditions are met.

Why the distinction matters: Determining citizenship as a legal status carries grave consequences (such as deportation or statelessness) and is reserved exclusively for the competent authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955. By confining the EC to electoral satisfaction only, the Court prevented the SIR from becoming a backdoor citizenship-stripping mechanism while still allowing the rolls to be cleaned.

The mandatory referral safeguard: To operationalise this, the Court directed that anyone deleted on the ground of doubtful citizenship must be referred by the EC within four weeks to the competent authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955. That authority must decide each case, after notice and hearing, preferably before the next Parliamentary, Assembly or local body election (whichever is earlier). If the person is found to be a citizen, their name "shall be included in the electoral roll."

Aadhaar is identity, not citizenship: A recurring flashpoint was whether Aadhaar, EPIC (voter ID) and ration cards prove citizenship. The Court agreed with the EC that these documents establish identity or residence but are not, by themselves, conclusive proof of citizenship, since they can be issued to residents who are not citizens. Hence they must be supported by other documents. This aligns with rulings such as the Bombay High Court's view that merely holding Aadhaar, PAN or voter ID does not by itself make a person an Indian citizen.

Interim accommodation during the process: During the litigation, the Court had earlier (July–August 2025) urged the EC to sympathetically consider Aadhaar, ration card and EPIC as part of the verification material, and even allowed a "non-included" voter to use Aadhaar to challenge omission — balancing strictness with the need to avoid wrongful exclusion of genuine electors.

Built-in due process: The Court underlined that the SIR contains procedural safeguards — notice to affected persons, an opportunity to submit documents, and a structured claims-and-objections mechanism. It specifically relied on the requirements of notice and hearing contemplated under Rule 21A of the Registration of Electors Rules, holding that the deletion framework did not undermine these safeguards.

Transparency directions: In related proceedings (for example in Kerala), the Court directed the EC to publish the names of persons excluded from the draft rolls — both at local public offices and on the EC website — and to sympathetically consider extending deadlines for filing objections, so that aggrieved voters could effectively contest deletions.

From statutory right to constitutional right: For decades, Indian courts treated the right to vote as a purely statutory right created and regulated by Parliament. This shifted in Rajbala v. State of Haryana (2015), where the Supreme Court recognised the right to vote under Article 326 as carrying constitutional character. This evolution matters because a right with constitutional standing attracts the proportionality test — which is precisely the standard the Court applied to the SIR. The Bench also drew on the reasoning in In Re: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, the Assam-related ruling authored by CJI Surya Kant, reaffirming the link between citizenship and the franchise.

The institutional context — Election Commission: The ECI is a permanent, independent constitutional body established under Article 324. The Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners enjoy security of tenure, and the CEC can be removed only in the manner and on grounds applicable to a Supreme Court judge, insulating the body from executive pressure. Electoral rolls and their integrity are the foundation of every election the ECI conducts.

Phase I (Bihar, 2025): Of about 7.89 crore voters, roughly 65 lakh names were deleted in the draft roll. After the claims-and-objections period, about 3 lakh were added back, leaving the final figure around 7.42 crore. Deletions were attributed to deaths, permanent migration and multiple registrations.

Phase II (12 states/UTs, 2025–26): Across Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Kerala, Puducherry, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Goa, about 5.18 crore names were removed, reducing the electorate to about 45.81 crore — a 10.2% drop. Over 66.88 lakh of these were deceased voters, with the highest such removals in Uttar Pradesh (about 25.47 lakh) followed by West Bengal (about 24.16 lakh). The deletions were broadly categorised as "ASD" — Absent, Shifted, or Dead/Duplicate.

What comes next: A third phase is expected to cover the remaining roughly 40 crore electors across the other states and UTs after ongoing elections conclude.

Balancing roll purity with the franchise: The judgment is significant because it tries to reconcile two democratic values — the need for clean, accurate electoral rolls free of bogus and ineligible entries, and the constitutional protection of every genuine citizen's right to vote. By upholding the EC's power but fencing it with the citizenship-referral safeguard and proportionality, the Court sought a middle path.

Federal and rights dimensions: The case touches the separation of functions between the EC (electoral rolls) and the Union Government (citizenship determination), the limits of constitutional versus statutory authority (Articles 324 and 327), and the due-process rights of vulnerable populations — all core themes in Indian polity and governance.