‘Must know whose votes may be counted’: Supreme Court upholds the validity of Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar

EARLIER TODAY, a bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymayla Bagchi delivered the judgment upholding the validity of the Special Intensive Revision (‘SIR’) of the electoral rolls in Bihar.

“Before any representative government can count votes, it must first know whose votes may be counted. The story of democracy is therefore not only a story of voting, but also of identifying the persons entitled to participate in the choice of government,”wrote CJI Kant while opening the judgment. 

Background

Bihar’s last SIR was conducted in 2003. Since then, electoral rolls were revised through summary revisions.

On June 24, last year, the Election Commission of India (‘ECI’) invoking its powers through Article 324 of the Constitution of India and Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (‘RP Act’), issued an order directing a SIR of the electoral rolls for every Assembly constituency in Bihar, ahead of the November 2025 elections. 

The exercise was undertaken within a remarkably short span despite Bihar’s projected 2023 population of 12.7 crore, accounting for nearly 9.1 per cent of India’s total population. This had raised concerns about the scale, speed, and feasibility of such a revision.

For the 2025 SIR, the 2003 electoral roll was treated as probative evidence of eligibility, with persons listed therein presumed eligible unless rebutted. Those absent from the 2003 roll were required to submit Enumeration Forms by July 25, 2025.

When the draft electoral roll was published in August 2025, nearly 65 lakh electors were excluded for failure to submit the required forms. Following scrutiny and subsequent additions, 21.53 lakh eligible electors were added, while 3.66 lakh names were ultimately deleted.

The final electoral roll published in September 2025 recorded 7.42 crore electors, down from the initial 7.89 crore. 

Petitioners’ contention

The petitioners had contended that the SIR exercise was unconstitutional, arbitrary, exclusionary and disproportionate.

Firstly, they argued that the ECI's reliance on Article 324 as a freestanding reservoir of plenary power was flawed and ECI's residuary power operates only in “interstitial spaces” not occupied by Parliamentary legislation. Reliance was placed on Mohinder Singh Gill v Chief Election Commissioner (1978) and A.C. Jose v Sivan Pillai (1984). Since Parliament had already enacted the RP Acts (1950 and 1951) and the 1960 Electoral Rules, the ECI could not leapfrog or circumvent this existing statutory framework to create a new regime of enumeration. 

Secondly, they challenged the ECI’s use of Section 21(3) of the 1950 Act, which allows for special revisions. The provision is, they argued, constituency-specific and does not authorise a sweeping statewide revision. A special revision is envisaged as an extraordinary measure, only to be used when Section 21(2) is rendered inapplicable, and one that is meant to be deployed in exceptional circumstances, confined to specific  geographical units where an identified exigency warrants departure from the routine revision process.

Thirdly, they maintained that a name already on the electoral roll carries a presumption of validity and regularity under Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and by forcing existing electors to re-establish their credentials, the ECI placed an “affirmative burden” on citizens to prove their status anew, which strikes at the foundation of the statutory scheme. Reliance was placed on Lal Babu Hussein v. Electoral Registration Officer (1995) where the Court held that electors whose names appear on the electoral roll are entitled to a presumption of citizenship, and that this presumption cannot be displaced except by following the procedure prescribed by law.

Fourthly, the petitioners contended that using the 2003 roll as the baseline was arbitrary, as there was no evidence that 2003 rolls were more accurate than subsequent ones. They also asserted that the ECI bypassed Rule 21A of the 1960 Rules, which mandates individual notice and a reasonable opportunity for a hearing before a name is deleted due to death, migration, or disqualification. They argued that missing the enumeration deadline led to automatic, arbitrary exclusion without these safeguards.