The Supreme Court on Thursday, January 22, 2026, raised concerns regarding the Election Commission of India's (ECI) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, specifically questioning whether the ECI's order explicitly mentioned citizenship verification as a reason for the revision. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi presided over the hearing, which involved petitions alleging discrepancies in the SIR process in West Bengal that led to exclusions from the electoral roll.
Justice Bagchi pointed out that the SIR order does not clearly state that the exercise includes verification of citizenship or addresses illegal immigration. He stated that the "aspect of illegality comes only in the case of immigration," and the SIR order does not explicitly mention that it concerns illegal immigration.
Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing the ECI, argued that "migration" could refer to both internal and external movement. However, Justice Bagchi countered that inter-state migration is a constitutional right and therefore legal. He further inquired if the Citizenship Amendment Act of 2003 was a trigger for the SIR, considering the ECI's order made no explicit reference to cross-border or illegal migration. Dwivedi responded that the 2003 amendment, which introduced stricter requirements for establishing citizenship, had not been operationalized earlier, and the SIR provided an opportunity to note the changed legal framework.
The ECI has maintained that the SIR is a fair, just, and reasonable exercise, urging the Supreme Court to reject petitions against the electoral roll revision. Dwivedi argued that the petitions, filed by political party leaders and NGOs, are a "hue and cry" on behalf of unnamed individuals and that no directly affected individuals have approached the court. He also stated that the petitions seek a "roving enquiry" into the ECI's work.
Dwivedi defended the ECI's right to adopt different methodologies for special revisions under Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, emphasizing that these revisions need not mirror routine revisions. He noted that Bihar had not undergone an SIR in nearly 20 years, making it necessary to address changing demographic realities like urbanization and population movement.
The ECI also stated that the verification of citizenship was being done for electoral purposes only, not with the intention of deporting non-citizens and that the verification process was a 'liberal, soft-touch' approach. The ECI also highlighted procedural safeguards, including door-to-door verification by Booth Level Agents and SMS alerts to voters. They stated that a majority of voters were not required to submit any documents, and others could furnish one of eleven prescribed documents.
The Supreme Court's observations highlight the importance of clearly defining the objectives and scope of electoral roll revisions, particularly when citizenship verification is involved. The court is now tasked with determining whether the ECI's actions are justified and align with constitutional principles, especially concerning due process and the right to vote.
