On May 27, the Supreme Court held that the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls neither stands in direct conflict with the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
The judgment, authored by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, concluded the exercise did not detract from the “constitutional imperative of free and fair elections”.
The court summarised the mandate of the SIR into two core objectives — to ensure the inclusion of all eligible electors in the electoral roll, and the exclusion of all ineligible ones. However, it reasoned that incremental judicial interventions had progressively infused the process with safeguards.
The court acknowledged that the SIR, as initially designed, raised “legitimate concerns regarding documentation, transparency, and access”. “The proportionality of a measure must ultimately be assessed not in the abstract, but in the manner in which it is implemented,” the court observed.
The court has promised to examine his concerns. “Citizenship is a matter of profound consequence, engaging both individual rights and the integrity of the polity. Over 37 lakh of the 38 lakh appeals remain pending adjudication across 19 Tribunals set up under earlier directives by the Supreme Court, according to ECI’s own affidavit. As of September, the 19 tribunals have decided only 1,26,194 appeals. The scale of backlog has prompted the ECI to seek court permission to increase the number of Tribunals from 19 to 42. Allegations have surfaced of unauthorised filing of 16 lakh appeals against inclusion of voters in West Bengal without the knowledge or authorisation of the two Election Commissioners and the West Bengal Chief Electoral Officer. In Uttar Pradesh SIR, Indian National Congress MP Tanuj Punia brought claims of widespread fraud regarding Form 7 before the court. Form 7 is a statutory mechanism under the 1960 Rules, intended for bona fide objections to the inclusion of names in the electoral roll on grounds of death or permanent shifting of residence. The draft roll in Delhi have fewer electors than those who voted in 2025 in one-third of Delhi’s seats.
In West Bengal alone, where approximately 27 lakh electors were purged due to alleged ‘logical discrepancies’, over 22 lakh voters have filed appeals challenging their deletion. The process of electoral revision must, therefore, be conducted with care, fairness, and due regard to the limits of institutional competence,” the court had said.
In the ongoing Delhi SIR, the Supreme Court observed that the ouster of over 33 lakh voters due to ‘logical discrepancies’ and ‘no mapping’ prima facie point to “machine-generated” deletion notices issued without any application of mind .
