In the aftermath of declaration of results of the election to the 18th Bihar legislative assembly on November 14, 2025 and formation of the State government on November 20, 2025, in Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) & Ors. v. Election Commission of India & Ors. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi delivered a 124-page long judgement on the constitutionality of Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls in State of Bihar and the power of the Election Commission of India under Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. The judgement was authored by the Chief Justice India. The ADR case was heard along with 18 other writ petitions but the judgement does not name them. Their petitions are:-
1.Manoj Kumar Jha vs. Election Commission of India,
2.Mujahid Alam vs. Election Commission of India,
3.Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs. Union of India,
4.People's Union For Civil Liberties vs. Election Commission of India,
5.Yogendra Singh Yadav vs. Election Commission of India,
6.Mahua Moitra vs. Election Commission of India,
7.K.C.Venugopal vs. Election Commission of India,
8.Rajeev Ranjan vs. Union of India,
9.Arshad Ajmal vs.Election Commission of India,
10.Akhtarul Iman vs. Election Commission of India,
11.Zarif Hosain vs. Election Commission of India,
12.Mohammad Adeeb vs. The Election Commission of India,
13.Sudhakar Singh vs. Election Commission of India,
14.Thol Thirumavalavan vs. Election Commission of India,
15.National Federation for Indian Women vs. Election Commission of India,
16.P.K. Kunhalikyutty vs.Election Commission of India,
17.Rajesh Ranjan@Pappu Yadav vs. Election Commission of India,
18.Vaibhav Mishra vs. Election Commission of India
The Court concluded:"The Impugned SIR exercise neither stands in direct conflict with the RP Act and the 1960 Rules, nor does it detract from the constitutional imperative of free and fair elections. It is, instead, an exercise traceable to Section 21(3) of the RP Act read with Article 324 of the Constitution, undertaken to advance the very objective which Part XV of the Constitution is designed to protect." The Court pronounced the judgement, upon hearing a batch of writ petitions instituted under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, assailing the impugned order directing SIR in Bihar. The petitioners contended that, unless quashed, the impugned order is liable to result in the arbitrary disenfranchisement of lakhs of voters in the State of Bihar, thereby imperilling the conduct of free and fair elections. The Court recorded:"9. We deem it appropriate to clarify that certain petitions (for instance, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 855 of 2025) have in fact been instituted in support of the SIR exercise. The petitioner(s) in these cases have urged that such an exercise ought to be conducted at regular intervals to prevent and curb the inclusion of ineligible persons in the electoral rolls on account of illegal influx.
It all began with the issuance of the impugned order by the Election Commission of India in purported exercise of its powers under Article 324 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (RP Act), directing an SIR of the electoral rolls in every Assembly constituency of the State of Bihar. The impugned order recorded that the last intensive revision in the State of Bihar was conducted in 2003, and that, over the past two decades, substantial changes in the electoral rolls have occurred inter alia on account of rapid urbanisation and largescale migration. Therefore, in furtherance of its constitutional mandate to safeguard the integrity of the electoral rolls and ensure free and fair elections, the Commission resolved to undertake a nationwide SIR.
Given that general elections to the Bihar Legislative Assembly were anticipated later in 2025, the Commission directed the conduct of SIR in the State of Bihar.. In terms of Clause 11 of the impugned order, the Commission decided to treat the 2003 electoral roll, with January 1, 2003 as the qualifying date, as probative evidence of eligibility, unless rebutted. The impugned order, in Clause 12, further stipulated that any person not listed in the 2003 roll must produce one or more prescribed government documents to establish their eligibility as an elector. The impugned order also provided that for the aforesaid purpose, the Commission shall release an Enumeration Form to be filled and submitted by July 25, 2025, failing which the elector’s name would be excluded from the draft rolls. The Enumeration Form provided an indicative list of Eleven (11) documents that could be submitted along with the Enumeration Form, each of which would be considered a sufficient document in itself. Clause 14 of the impugned order read with the accompanying Guidelines (SIR Guidelines) thereafter added that, after the publication of the draft roll, the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO)/Assistant Electoral Registration Officer (AERO) were required to scrutinise the eligibility of the proposed electors in accordance with Article 326 of the Constitution, read with Sections 16 and 19 of the RP Act. Upon such scrutiny, where the eligibility of any person is found to be doubtful, the ERO/AERO was mandated to issue a show-cause notice setting out the grounds for the proposed exclusion, allow the concerned elector to submit a response, and thereafter render a reasoned and speaking order in the matter.
The impugned order further added that any person aggrieved by a decision of the ERO shall be entitled to prefer an appeal before the District Magistrate under Section 24(a) of the RP Act, read with Rule 27 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 (1960 Rules). Furthermore, it was also stipulated that if the elector remains dissatisfied with the decision of the District Magistrate, a second appeal may be filed before the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) within thirty days, in terms of Section 24(b) of the RP Act, read with Rule 27 of the 1960 Rules. Along with thei mpugned order, the Commission also published detailed SIR Guidelines for the conduct of the exercise. It was envisaged that the exercise would be carried out through a structured Houseto-House enumeration, the rationalisation of polling stations, and the preparation of electoral rolls. It was also stipulated that Booth Level Officers (BLOs) would visit each household, distribute pre-filled enumeration forms to existing electors, and collect the duly filled forms along with requisite documents, with an additional facility for online submission and verification. In addition, the SIR Guidelines also contemplated that the draft electoral roll would include only those electors from whom enumeration forms had been received, either physically or through verified online submission, while the names of those who failed to submit such forms would not be included at the draft stage. Shortly after the publication of the Impugned Order and the SIR Guidelines, the Commission issued a Press Note on June 28, 2025 declaring the commencement of the SIR in the State of Bihar.
Referring to the measures adopted by the Election Commission of India, the judgement reads: "The Impugned SIR exercise, as conducted, satisfies the requirements of proportionality. The measures adopted bear a rational nexus to the objective sought to be achieved, are not manifestly excessive, and are accompanied by sufficient procedural safeguards to prevent arbitrary exclusion. The Impugned exercise was founded upon a legitimate and constitutionally grounded purpose, namely, the restoration of the accuracy, completeness, and integrity of the electoral rolls. Having regard to the nature of the problem sought to be addressed, the scale of the exercise undertaken, and the procedural safeguards incorporated during its implementation, the measures adopted by the Commission cannot be said to be disproportionate to the object sought to be achieved."
Justice Surya Kant wrote:"While inclusion in the electoral roll gives rise to a presumption of validity, such presumption is rebuttable and cannot be construed as imposing a blanket embargo on the powers of the Commission to undertake a Special Intensive Revision. The decision in Lal Babu Hussein (Supra) does not compel a contrary conclusion, being confined to the context of adjudicatory proceedings and not extending to a systemic, inquisitorial exercise undertaken in furtherance of the Commission’s constitutional mandate." He added: "The deletions effected pursuant to the Impugned SIR exercise cannot be said to be contrary to the procedure prescribed under Rule 21A of the 1960 Rules. The safeguards of notice and hearing are preserved in substance, and the process adopted by the Commission remains within the bounds of the statutory mandate." The judgement reads: "The documentation regime prescribed by the Commission represents a considered exercise of its administrative discretion in furtherance of its Constitutional mandate. The classification of documents, including the exclusion of certain categories (apart from Aadhar Card, which was directed to be included vide Order dated 08.09.2025), is based on intelligible criteria having a direct nexus with the objective of ensuring the integrity of the electoral roll. We are, therefore, unable to hold that the impugned documentation framework is arbitrary or violative of the statutory scheme."
The Division Bench concluded:"The Commission is empowered, in the exercise of its constitutional mandate, to undertake a limited enquiry into citizenship for the purpose of satisfying itself as to eligibility for inclusion in the electoral roll. Such an enquiry does not amount to a determination of citizenship in the strict sense, and any action taken pursuant thereto is confined to electoral consequences alone. The consequence of such a determination is correspondingly limited. It affects the individual’s entitlement to be included in the electoral roll, and thereby their right to participate in the electoral process. It does not, however, operate to divest the individual of claims of citizenship, nor does it foreclose a determination of
that question by the Competent Authority under the Citizenship Act. g) In cases where the Commission is not satisfied that a person meets the statutory conditions for inclusion in the electoral roll, it would be incumbent upon it to refer such an individual to the competent authority within the Central Government for adjudication in accordance with law. The Commission’s determination, being confined to electoral purposes, cannot assume finality on the question of citizenship. Any deletion effected on this ground shall, therefore, remain subject to the outcome of such adjudication by the appropriate authority. h) Regarding persons whose names have been deleted from the 2003 roll on account of the Commission being of the opinion that they are not citizens, the Commission shall refer such cases within 4 weeks to the Competent authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955, for adjudication of their citizenship. The Competent Authority shall take the necessary decision in accordance with law, preferably before the next Parliamentary, Assembly, Local Body elections, whichever is earlier, after giving notice and an opportunity of hearing to
the deleted individuals, if any. In the event the Competent Authority holds that such deleted individuals are citizens, they shall be included in the electoral roll. In addition thereto, all persons who are domiciled in Bihar and whose names have been erroneously deleted on the ground that they are absent, dead, shifted or in duplication may assail the decision of the Commission by way of judicial review.
The Court arrived at these findings after grappling with the following issues: 1. Whether the Election Commission of India has power to conduct the Impugned Special Intensive Revision? 2. Whether the Impugned Special Intensive Revision is founded on a legitimate purpose, and if so, whether the measures adopted by the Election Commission of India are proportionate to the object sought to be achieved? 3. Whether the procedure adopted by the Election Commission of India in conducting the Impugned Special Intensive Revision is contrary to, or in violation of, the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960? 4. Whether, in the exercise of its constitutional mandate of preparation and maintenance of electoral rolls, and in furtherance of the statutory conditions governing such registration, the Election Commission of India is empowered to scrutinise the citizenship status of persons seeking inclusion or continuation in the electoral roll?
Given the fact that democracy is a government by dialogue, the judgment is nothing but articulation of judicial viewpoint in the ongoing dialogue. There are catena of judgments of the Supreme Court of India and elsewhere that demonstrate the a lot of Division Bench judgements do not have a long life. It is nothing more than a viewpoint of two of the judges of the Court, which may or may not be consequential. The continued possession of the illegitimate money cornered through electoral bonds despite 232-page long judgement dated February 15, 2024 by 5-Judge Constitution Bench of CJI Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justices B R Gavai, J B Pardiwala, Manoj Misra and Sanjeev Khanna in Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2024) is illustrative.
The Constitution Bench concluded: "a. The Electoral Bond Scheme, the proviso to Section 29C(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1951 (as amended by Section 137 of Finance Act 2017), Section 182(3) of the Companies Act (as amended by Section 154 of the Finance Act 2017), and Section 13A(b) (as amended by Section 11 of Finance Act 2017) are violative of Article 19(1)(a) and unconstitutional; and b. The deletion of the proviso to Section 182(1) of the Companies Act permitting unlimited corporate contributions to political parties is arbitrary and violative of Article 14. 217. We direct the disclosure of information on contributions received by political parties under the Electoral Bond Scheme to give logical and complete effect to our ruling. On 12 April 2019, this Court issued an interim order directing that the information of donations received and donations which will be received must be submitted by political parties to the ECI in a sealed cover. This Court directed that political parties submit detailed particulars of the donors as against each Bond, the amount of each bond and the full particulars of the credit received against each bond, namely, the particulars of the bank account to which the amount has been credited and the date on which each such credit was made."
Justice Khanna in his separate but concurring judgement had concluded:"In case the Bonds issued (within the validity period) are with the donor/purchaser, the donor/purchaser may return them to the authorised bank for refund of the amount. In case the Bonds (within the validity period) are with the donee/political party, the donee/political party will return the Bonds to the issuing bank, which will then refund the amount to the donor/purchaser. On failure, the amount will be credited to the Prime Ministers Relief Fund."
The billion dollar question is: what has Election Commission of India done with the "information of donations received and donations" submitted by political parties to it in a "sealed cover"? What has Supreme Court of India done about it? what will happen if some day it comes to light that the influence of electoral bond is found to be behind the entire SIR process?
