Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Special Intensive Revision of Electoral Rolls, Affirms Election Commission’s Constitutional Authority

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi ruled that the Special Intensive Revision carried out under Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, is consistent with the statutory framework governing electoral rolls and does not amount to an impermissible exercise of citizenship adjudication powers by the Election Commission of India.

Delivering the operative part of the judgment, the Chief Justice stated that the exercise was initiated in response to substantial changes in electoral rolls arising from demographic shifts, urbanisation, and large-scale migration. The court observed that the objective of the exercise was to protect the integrity of the electoral process and ensure free and fair elections.

The bench held that the Special Intensive Revision operates within the constitutional mandate under Article 324 and the statutory limits of Section 21(3), stating that it strengthens the framework governing electoral management without exceeding legal authority. It further observed that free and fair elections depend fundamentally on the accuracy, integrity, and credibility of electoral rolls.

Rejecting the primary challenge raised by the petitioners, the court held that the exercise neither replaces nor overrides the Representation of the People Act or the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. It concluded that the Election Commission has not acted beyond its statutory powers and that the measures adopted bear a reasonable nexus to the objectives sought and are not excessive.

The ruling came on petitions filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms and the People’s Union for Civil Liberties, along with political leaders including Manoj Kumar Jha, K C Venugopal, Mahua Moitra, and activist Yogendra Yadav, challenging the legality and implementation of the exercise conducted in Bihar and later extended to several states and Union Territories, including West Bengal.

The petitioners had argued that the timing and scale of the revision, undertaken ahead of assembly elections, resulted in large-scale exclusion of voters and effectively transformed the Election Commission into a body conducting citizenship verification without statutory authority. They also cited precedent in Lal Babu Hussein versus Electoral Registration Officer, contending that existing entries in electoral rolls carry a presumption of citizenship unless disproved by the State.

The court rejected this argument, holding that the presumption in favour of existing electors is rebuttable and does not prevent verification during revision. It ruled that requiring voters to submit supporting documentation does not negate the legal presumption attached to their inclusion in the electoral roll.

The bench clarified that while the Election Commission may examine questions of citizenship for electoral purposes, such scrutiny does not amount to a final determination of citizenship under the Citizenship Act. It further held that any adverse finding regarding citizenship must be referred within four weeks to the competent authority under the Citizenship Act for adjudication, and any deletion on such grounds would remain subject to that determination.

The court also directed that individuals whose names were wrongly removed from electoral rolls despite residing in Bihar may approach election authorities through appropriate representations for corrective action.

The judgment carries major constitutional and political significance, particularly as assembly elections in several states, including West Bengal, were conducted based on revised electoral rolls prepared under the Special Intensive Revision process.

According to data presented before the court, more than 9.1 million names, representing approximately 11.88 percent of the electorate in West Bengal prior to revision, were deleted from the electoral rolls as part of the exercise.

The revision process, initiated in Bihar through a notification dated June 24, 2025, required voters not traceable to the 2002 or 2003 electoral rolls to submit documentary proof linking them to individuals listed in those earlier records. The Election Commission initially prescribed 11 categories of documents, later expanded to include Aadhaar following directions issued by the Supreme Court during interim proceedings.

Senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, and Raju Ramachandran represented the petitioners, while senior advocates Rakesh Dwivedi, Maninder Singh, and Dama Seshadri Naidu appeared on behalf of the Election Commission of India.