The Supreme Court today upheld the legality of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls done by the Election Commission of India and observed that electoral SIR advances the Constitutional imperative of free and fair elections. The Court held that the Election Commission has the power to conduct SIR under Article 324 of Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the Rules made thereunder. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi pronounced the judgment in the writ petitions, which challenged the notification issued by the ECI in June last year to conduct SIR in Bihar.

 

The Court held that the SIR process had a nexus with the goal of having free and fair elections. The judgment pronounced by CJI Surya Kant held that when the statute itself authorises a special revision at any time, for reasons to be recorded and in such manner as the Election Commission may deem fit, the impugned exercise cannot be invalidated merely because it does not conform in every respect to the ordinary modalities contemplated for routine revision.  Therefore, it cannot be said that the Commission has acted in excess of its statutory powers.

 

The Court observed that the object sought to be achieved by the SIR bore a direct nexus with the constitutional goal of ensuring free and fair elections, noting that such elections did not rest merely on the mechanics of polling but fundamentally depended on the integrity, accuracy, and credibility of the electoral rolls, which formed the foundation of the democratic process. It further observed that the reasons recorded by the Election Commission, including the passage of more than four decades since the last intensive revision, large-scale additions and deletions over the years, and rapid urbanisation and migration leading to the possibility of duplication and inaccuracies in the electoral rolls, were clearly aimed at preserving that foundational integrity.

 

The Court rejected the argument that the procedure adopted by the ECI was contrary to the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. The Court also rejected the argument that the procedure negated the presumption of citizenship of persons already on rolls.