The Supreme Court on Thursday (January 29, 2026) reserved for judgment a series of petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise, which began in the State of Bihar.
Appearing before a Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, advocates Prashant Bhushan and Neha Rathi, for NGO Association for Democratic Reforms, submitted that the Election Commission has arbitrarily assumed powers to “determine citizenship”, overriding limitations clearly prescribed in parliamentary laws, rules, and its own manual without providing “any good reason” whatsoever.
“EC says its power to control over and conduct of elections under Article 324 is a carte blanche, not bound by any law, or rules, or any manual. EC says we can do what we want or how we want. But no authority can act arbitrarily or without any good reason,” Mr. Bhushan submitted.
Critical judgement
The Supreme Court’s judgment on the constitutionality of the BIhar SIR would determine whether the exercise is extended to other States.
During the hearing, Mr. Bhushan compared the 2025 SIR with the conduct of the 2003 one, in which ECI officials took time to actually undertake a door-to-door survey of electors. He said the 2025 SIR was riddled with structural problems, including that the onus of proving eligiblity for the electoral roll was essentially on the electors.
He said the SIR has seen a massive reduction in electors, mostly among women and migrant workers who were either unable to fill up enumeration forms or submit documents for verification.
Ruling on citizenship
“The Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) on the ground asks for either a passport or a birth certificate to determine citizenship. What about people who have neither? Besides, who has empowered the ERO with the authority to determine citizenship?” Mr. Bhushan asked.
He submitted that Form 6 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, mandated self-assertion or self-declaration of citizenship.
“The ERO is not a court. If somebody is asserting that I am not a citizen, I too have a right to cross examine that person or authority in court,” Mr. Bhushan argued.
Advocate Vrinda Grover, also for petitioners in the Bihar SIR, submitted that the procedure of the 2025 SIR was actually a “statutory amendment done in the garb of a notification”.
“Please let us know from where they [ECI] got the power?” Ms. Grover asked.
