Bihar SIR Upheld: SC in ADR v. Election Commission (2026)

Bihar Voter Roll Revision Upheld: Supreme Court Says Election Commission Can Conduct SIR, Orders Citizenship Referrals

Published: 20 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Supreme Court upheld the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Bihar's electoral rolls as traceable to Section 21(3) of the RP Act and Article 324, proportionate and backed by safeguards. The Commission may make a limited enquiry into citizenship for electoral purposes, but cannot finally decide it: those deleted as non-citizens must be referred to the competent authority within four weeks (paras 55, 103, 184, 186).

Key holdings

The SIR is traceable to Section 21(3) of the RP Act read with Article 324 (para 55).

The exercise met the test of proportionality, with safeguards against arbitrary exclusion (para 103).

A name on the roll carries only a rebuttable presumption of validity (para 125).

The Commission's citizenship enquiry is limited to electoral purposes and is not final (paras 184, 186).

Those deleted as non-citizens must be referred to the competent authority within four weeks (para 186).

Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

By its order of 24.06.2025 the Election Commission directed a Special Intensive Revision of the electoral rolls of every Assembly constituency in Bihar, the last intensive revision having been in 2003 (paras 7, 10). Electors had to submit an Enumeration Form, and those not on the 2003 roll had to produce prescribed documents; nearly 65 lakh were left out of the draft roll of 01.08.2025, and the final roll of 30.09.2025 had 7.42 crore electors against 7.89 crore before (para 10). Petitioners including the Association for Democratic Reforms challenged the exercise as arbitrary disenfranchisement, while some petitions supported it (paras 8-9).

Court's Findings

Articles 324 and 327 are not competing sources of power: Parliament's law is subject to the Constitution, and the Commission may act where the law is silent (paras 17-21). The SIR is traceable to Section 21(3) of the RP Act read with Article 324 and does not conflict with the Act or the 1960 Rules (para 55). Restoring the accuracy and integrity of the rolls is a legitimate aim, and the measures were rationally connected, not manifestly excessive and backed by safeguards (para 103). Inclusion in the roll raises only a rebuttable presumption of validity; Lal Babu Hussein, confined to adjudicatory proceedings, does not bar a systemic revision, and relying on the 2003 roll was not arbitrary (paras 124-125). Rule 21A requires fairness, which notice, enquiry, a speaking order and an appeal satisfied (para 143). Excluding some documents rested on rational grounds (para 155). The Commission's limited citizenship enquiry has only electoral consequences and cannot decide citizenship (para 184).

Legal Principle

The Election Commission may order a Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls under Section 21(3) of the RP Act read with Article 324 if it is proportionate and fair; it may enquire into citizenship only to decide eligibility to be on the roll, and must refer doubtful cases to the competent authority (paras 55, 103, 184, 186).

Precedents Relied Upon

Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978) 1 SCC 405
Explained Discussed at ¶ 20-22
Article 324 operates in areas left unoccupied by legislation, but where the law is silent the Commission retains authority to act to further free and fair elections.
All Party Hill Leaders' Conference, Shillong v. Captain W.A. Sangma (1977) 4 SCC 161
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 19
The Commission is empowered under Article 324 to issue directions in the widest terms necessary for a free and fair election.
Lal Babu Hussein v. Electoral Registration Officer (1995) 3 SCC 100
Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 107-109, 125
Inclusion in the electoral roll raises a presumption of citizenship; held confined to adjudicatory proceedings and no bar to a systemic revision.

View all precedents (4)

Inderjit Barua v. Election Commission of India (1985) 4 SCC 722
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 107
Considered with Lal Babu Hussein on the presumption arising from inclusion in the electoral roll.