On May 27, in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India, the Supreme Court upheld the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) order for the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The challenge stemmed from the SIR conducted before the November 2025 polls in Bihar.Since then, ECI has completed the process in 11 more states and Union Territories (UTs) and notified dates for SIRs in 19 others. We explain what the court said on the ECI’s authority to conduct SIR and on the question of citizenship.The judgment framed four questions: whether ECI had the power to conduct SIR, whether it exercised that power proportionately, whether the procedure violated the statutory scheme, and whether ECI can scrutinise the citizenship of potential voters. On each count, the court ruled for ECI.The court held that ECI was empowered to conduct SIR and that it had abided by the statutory scheme. The court found the exercise was broadly proportionate, and ECI was best placed to determine the exact technical modalities of revising electoral rolls. Many of the SIR’s problems, the court noted, had been remedied by its own interim orders, such as directing ECI to accept Aadhaar as proof of identity, publish lists of deleted voters, and depute judicial officers to assist with hearings.Also in Explained | How West Bengal SIR played out differently from other states, what it means for rest of countryThe court did not address whether the SIR’s timing — immediately before polls in Bihar, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Assam, and Kerala — impermissibly burdened the right to vote. Nor did it examine the legality of the process in West Bengal, where 1.36 crore electors were sent notices over alleged “logical discrepancies” in their forms, such as mismatched parents’ names or ages. The issue from West Bengal is pending in a separate petition before the court. The Special Intensive Revision process.The judgment clears the way for SIR in the rest of the country. With the legal battle over, the practical burden of avoiding disenfranchisement shifts to citizens. ECI has already notified the 30-day enumeration phase for each of the remaining states and UTs. Voters in the remaining states and UTs must understand the process and track how it applies to their own enrolment. Political parties, the media, and civil society, in turn, must hold ECI accountable to the process set out in its notifications read with the safeguards incorporated by the Supreme Court’s interim orders.The court held that ECI can examine a person’s citizenship while revising electoral rolls, since Section 16 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, bars non-citizens from registering as voters. A person already on the electoral roll, it clarified, enjoys a presumption that they are a voter and citizen.Story continues below this adBut if the material submitted during SIR does not satisfy ECI, it may decline enrolment or initiate deletion. Importantly, such a decision does not declare the person a non-citizen; it only means that ECI is not satisfied for electoral purposes, that the statutory conditions for inclusion in the electoral rolls are met. The sole consequence is exclusion from the electoral roll.Also read | Special Intensive Revision (SIR): Why is it important? Why ECI is doing it now and what you need to doAlthough the court has clarified that exclusion from the roll only impacts an individual’s ability to vote, political leaders in Bihar and West Bengal had, before the judgment, declared that welfare benefits will be withheld from those left off the rolls after SIR. Existing schemes whose eligibility is not based on electoral enrolment cannot lawfully be denied to those the SIR excludes. But that protection falls away if schemes are amended to expressly exclude those struck off the rolls by the SIR. Whether these positions shift in light of the court’s observations remains to be seen.It is worth noting that the judgment itself does not completely separate removal from the electoral roll from the loss of citizenship. The court held that when ECI is not satisfied that a person meets the citizenship conditions for inclusion, it must refer the question to the Central government under the Citizenship Act, 1955.Any deletion from the electoral roll on the ground of doubtful citizenship remains subject to the Central government’s final decision. That decision, the court added, should come within a reasonable time, and in any event before the next parliamentary, Assembly or local body election in the person’s constituency, so that electoral rights, and indeed citizenship, are not left uncertain for extended periods. The court also cautioned that since the denial of citizenship affects an individual’s “sense of identity and status within society”, such decisions must be approached with “procedural fairness and institutional restraint”.Story continues below this adNewsletterFollow our daily newsletter so you never miss anything important. On Wednesday, we answer readers' questions.SubscribeThere is precedent for the harm that referring individuals excluded from the rolls for citizenship determinations may cause. During the 1997 intensive revision of rolls in Assam, several hundred thousand people were marked as “Doubtful” voters and referred to Foreigners Tribunals (FTs) for a final determination of their citizenship. Nearly three decades on, the cases of many of these “D-Voters” remain undecided. They have languished in limbo, neither citizens nor foreigners, and have found it increasingly difficult to secure basic entitlements such as ration cards and bank accounts.The number excluded by the SIR dwarfs those once marked as D-voters and could overwhelm the existing capacity of FTs. Referring everyone struck off the rolls, often for minor clerical errors such as mismatched names across documents, for a citizenship determination could result not only in the disenfranchisement of these individuals but a decades-long condition of rightlessness.Prepared with assistance from Shehnaz Chowdhury.