Supreme Court Upheld Constitutional Validity of Special Intensive Revision of Voter List, Empowering Election Commission to Verify Citizenship Under Limited Scope

The Court clarified that while the Election Commission may examine citizenship status for the purpose of adding or removing names from the voter list, such assessment must remain strictly confined to electoral purposes. It further emphasized that the Commission does not possess the authority to make a final determination declaring any individual as a non-citizen.

SIR is an administrative voter list revision mechanism involving door-to-door verification, during which eligible citizens above eighteen years of age are added to the electoral rolls, while deceased individuals or those permanently relocated are removed. The process also corrects inaccuracies in names and addresses, thereby strengthening electoral integrity and reducing fraudulent entries.

According to official records, the SIR exercise initiated in Bihar in June 2025 has so far been completed across ten states and three union territories. During this nationwide revision, approximately 74.1 million voter entries have been removed, including around 28.9 million in Uttar Pradesh alone.

The Supreme Court addressed multiple legal and procedural questions concerning the Election Commission’s authority. The Court observed that the SIR process does not exceed the powers of the Election Commission and is aimed at ensuring transparent and fair elections rather than weakening the democratic framework. It further noted that the objective of the exercise is to maintain an accurate and updated electoral database.

On the issue of legal compliance with the Representation of the People Act, the Court held that the SIR mechanism is consistent with statutory provisions and does not violate the Act. It also upheld the Election Commission’s authority to seek documentation during verification, stating that such requirements cannot be termed arbitrary. Among the accepted documents are identity and citizenship-related records, including birth certificates, passports, academic certificates, government service identity proofs, domicile certificates, caste certificates, forest rights documents, family registers issued by local bodies, land or housing allotment letters, public sector employment records, and National Register documentation. Following the recent judicial clarification, Aadhaar has also been recognized as a valid supporting document.

Regarding individuals whose names have been removed from the voter list, the Court directed that their cases must be forwarded within four weeks to the relevant government agency responsible for citizenship determination. The agency must issue notices, provide an opportunity for representation, and ensure a decision is taken before elections.

The Election Commission announced the third phase of SIR on May 14, covering sixteen states and three union territories, including Odisha, Mizoram, Sikkim, Manipur, Uttarakhand, Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Haryana, Chandigarh, Telangana, Punjab, Karnataka, Meghalaya, Maharashtra, Jharkhand, Delhi, Nagaland, and Tripura. Approximately 367.3 million voters will undergo verification in this phase, supported by 394,000 Booth Level Officers. The final voter list for Delhi is scheduled for publication on October 7. Due to seasonal constraints, SIR implementation in Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh will be announced separately.

Citizens seeking to verify their inclusion in the voter list may do so through their respective state election commission platforms by searching via EPIC number or constituency details. Those excluded from the list may reapply for inclusion by submitting Form 6, providing accurate personal details, supporting documents, photographs, and signatures. Applications can be submitted through Booth Level Officers, online election portals, or district election offices. Required supporting documents include identity proof, address proof, and age verification records such as birth certificates or academic certificates.

The Supreme Court’s ruling marks a significant judicial endorsement of the Election Commission’s authority to maintain electoral integrity while reinforcing procedural safeguards to protect individual rights within the democratic framework.