Key Highlights
- The apex court affirmed that the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Bihar and other states is constitutionally sound.
- SIR is deemed a proportionate, lawful tool under Article 324 and the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
- The judgment reinforces the Commission’s authority to purge duplicates, correct inaccuracies and, where necessary, probe limited citizenship matters.
- Procedural safeguards, including an expanded document list (Aadhaar as the 12th document), were upheld as non‑discriminatory.
- Deleted voters must be given an opportunity for review within four weeks, ensuring individual rights alongside electoral integrity.
Detailed Insights
The two‑judge bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant delivered a unanimous opinion that the Special Intensive Revision exercise satisfies all constitutional and statutory requisites. The Court examined four pivotal questions: the Commission’s power to launch SIR, the legitimacy of its purpose, conformity with the Representation of the People Act and election rules, and the permissibility of limited citizenship verification. All questions were answered in favour of the EC.
Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act expressly authorises a “special revision” in exceptional circumstances, distinguishing it from the routine annual update. The judges clarified that the ECI enjoys flexibility to adopt alternate procedures when the situation demands, provided the actions remain within the ambit of Article 324.
Accurate electoral rolls are portrayed as the cornerstone of free and fair elections. The Court noted that erroneous voter lists can erode democratic fairness, and therefore periodic verification – even of individuals already on the roll – is essential. Inclusion creates a rebuttable presumption of citizenship, not an absolute shield against scrutiny.
Regarding documentation, the EC initially sanctioned eleven identity proofs and later added Aadhaar as the twelfth, following the Court’s direction. This “intelligible criteria” framework was judged neither arbitrary nor discriminatory.
On citizenship inquiries, the Court held that the EC may conduct a limited verification for electoral purposes, but any doubts must be referred to the appropriate authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955.
Finally, the Court issued remedial directives: disputed cases must be referred within four weeks, hearings concluded before upcoming polls, and wrongly deleted eligible voters reinstated. These measures strive to balance the twin imperatives of electoral integrity and individual rights.