Case at a Glance
A batch of writ petitions challenged the Election Commission’s order of 24 June 2025 directing a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls across Bihar, under which the 2003 roll was treated as probative and others had to produce listed documents. The Supreme Court held that the SIR was traceable to Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 read with Article 324, had a legitimate purpose and was not disproportionate, and that the procedure preserved notice and hearing in substance. The Commission may conduct only a limited enquiry into citizenship for the purpose of eligibility to be on the roll; it cannot formally determine citizenship and must refer doubtful cases to the competent authority. The petitions were disposed of with directions, including that Aadhaar be accepted as an additional identity document.
By its order of 24 June 2025, issued under Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 21(3) of the RP Act, 1950, the Election Commission directed a Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in every Assembly constituency in Bihar. The 2003 roll was treated as probative evidence, and persons not on it had to produce documents from a prescribed list. Petitioners, including the Association for Democratic Reforms, called the exercise unconstitutional, arbitrary, exclusionary and disproportionate; some petitions supported it. On 10 July 2025 the Court issued notice and framed prima facie questions on the Commission’s power, the method of verifying citizenship and the timing before the November 2025 polls.
As the exercise proceeded, the draft roll published on 1 August 2025 had about 7.24 crore electors against 7.89 crore on 24 June 2025, with about 65 lakh excluded. The Court directed publication of the excluded list with reasons, twelve political parties were impleaded, and Aadhaar came to be treated as a 12th identity document, though not proof of citizenship. The final roll published on 30 September 2025 had 7.42 crore electors. The Court framed four issues: the Commission’s power, purpose and proportionality, compliance with the RP Act and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, and the power to scrutinise citizenship.
The Key Question Before the Court
Did the Election Commission have the power to order a state-wide Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar, was the exercise proportionate and lawful, and can the Commission examine citizenship?
Power Under Section 21(3), Proportionality and the Limits of a Citizenship Enquiry
On power, the Court held that Articles 324 and 327 are complementary, not competing, and that Article 324 is not confined to areas left unoccupied by legislation, though the Commission cannot override an express statutory prohibition. Section 21(3) of the RP Act supplied the statutory footing, and the Commission’s power to direct a special revision did not depend on subordinate rules. The order recorded reasons — urbanisation, migration and the 22 years since the last intensive revision — and was “an exercise traceable to Section 21(3) of the RP Act read with Article 324 of the Constitution”. The Court drew on Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, (1977) 12 SC CK 0003, A.C. Jose v. Sivan Pillai, (1984) 03 SC CK 0012, Kanhiya Lal Omar v. R.K. Trivedi and Lal Babu Hussein v. Electoral Registration Officer, among others.
On proportionality, the Court held that “The doctrine of proportionality does not mandate the adoption of the least restrictive measure in the abstract”, treated the exercise as a response to a systemic problem, and relied on safeguards of notice, appeals and publication of exclusions to conclude that “the measures adopted by the Commission cannot be said to be disproportionate to the object sought to be achieved.” Inclusion in the roll raises a presumption that is “rebuttable and cannot be construed as imposing a blanket embargo” on the Commission, and under Rule 21A “The safeguards of notice and hearing are preserved in substance.” The documentation regime rested on “intelligible criteria having a direct nexus with the objective”. On citizenship, the Commission may conduct “a limited enquiry into citizenship for the purpose of satisfying itself as to eligibility”, which is not a formal determination; where not satisfied, it must refer the individual to the competent authority under the Central Government.
What the Court Actually Held
- The Special Intensive Revision is traceable to Section 21(3) of the RP Act, 1950 read with Article 324 and was within the Election Commission’s power.
- The exercise has a legitimate purpose and is not disproportionate; deletions under Rule 21A are not contrary to procedure, and the presumption arising from inclusion in the roll is rebuttable.
- The documentation regime stands, with Aadhaar to be included as an additional identity document.
- The Commission’s citizenship findings are limited to electoral consequences and remain subject to adjudication by the competent authority; cases of deletion on the ground of citizenship must be referred within 4 weeks to the competent authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955, while persons deleted as absent, dead, shifted or duplicate may seek judicial review.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It settles the Election Commission’s power to conduct intensive revisions of rolls, with implications beyond Bihar.
- It draws a line between checking eligibility to vote and determining citizenship, which belongs to the competent authority.
- It preserves remedies for voters deleted from the rolls, through reference to the competent authority or judicial review.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Voters
- If you are deleted from the roll, the reason matters: citizenship-based deletions must be referred to the competent authority, while other deletions can be challenged in judicial review.
- Aadhaar is to be accepted as an additional identity document, though it is not proof of citizenship.
- Use the claims, objections and appeal stages provided in the revision process.
For Counsel
- Frame challenges to roll revisions on the specific statutory steps — notice, hearing, Rule 21A and Section 24 appeals.
- The Commission’s citizenship view is not a formal determination; insist on reference to the competent authority.
- Proportionality review here did not require the least restrictive measure in the abstract; build a record of actual exclusionary effect.
Key Takeaways
- The Bihar SIR of electoral rolls was upheld as within the Commission’s power.
- The exercise was held proportionate, with notice and hearing preserved in substance.
- Aadhaar must be accepted as an additional identity document.
- The Commission can only make a limited citizenship enquiry and must refer doubtful cases to the competent authority.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls?
It is a fresh, intensive verification of the voters’ list. In Bihar, the 2003 roll was treated as probative and others had to submit documents from a prescribed list. The Supreme Court held it was authorised by Section 21(3) of the RP Act read with Article 324.
Can the Election Commission decide whether someone is a citizen?
Only to a limited extent. The Court held that the Commission may make a limited enquiry into citizenship to satisfy itself about eligibility for the roll, but this is not a formal determination; doubtful cases must be referred to the competent authority.
Is Aadhaar accepted in the revision?
Yes. The Court upheld the documentation regime but directed that Aadhaar be included as an additional identity document.
Conclusion
The judgment upholds the Election Commission’s power to clean up electoral rolls through an intensive revision while placing a clear limit on how far it can go into questions of citizenship. Whether a voter stays on the roll is the Commission’s domain; whether a person is a citizen is not.
Practical takeaway: A voter deleted during a roll revision should first find out the ground of deletion — it determines whether the remedy lies before the competent authority under the Citizenship Act or in judicial review.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com