The court's order giving the EC a four-week window to report the deletions essentially shifts the burden on the deleted individual to prove their citizenship.At the heart of the Supreme Court’s ruling Wednesday, which upheld the legal validity of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls by the Election Commission (EC), is a striking contradiction.While the court underlined that the SIR was restricted to electoral eligibility and deletion from the voter’s list “does not amount to a declaration that the individual is not a citizen of India,” it also directed that those excluded from the list will face “adjudication of their citizenship” before the next elections.“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,” the Court said in its 124-page ruling.The Ministry of Home Affairs, under the Citizenship Act and the Foreigners’ Tribunals, looks into aspects of citizenship contestations. The court’s order giving the EC a four-week window to report the deletions essentially shifts the burden on the deleted individual to prove their citizenship.Also Read | ‘Supreme Court has authorised disenfranchisement of millions’: Petitioners slam SIR verdictThe SC said that the EC, in the course of preparing or revising electoral rolls, is “undoubtedly empowered to examine questions bearing upon citizenship.” However, the Court circumscribed this power, terming it “necessarily prima facie and contextual.” When understood in its “proper perspective,” the Court said that “it does not amount to a declaration that the individual is not a citizen of India; it merely reflects the Commission’s inability to be satisfied, for electoral purposes, that the statutory conditions are met.”The petitioners had argued that voters whose names were included on electoral rolls were entitled to a presumption of citizenship, as per a 1995 ruling in Lal Babu Hussein v Electoral Registration Officer. While the Court acknowledged the precedent’s foundational principle that an entry in the electoral roll, as an official act, carries a presumption of regularity, it distinguished it from the current case. The Court held that the presumption is evidentiary and rebuttable, and not a “conclusive legal fiction” or a “perpetual guarantee against scrutiny.”In the ruling, the Court also noted that the SIR process, as initially designed, “did raise legitimate concerns regarding documentation, transparency, and access.” “However, it is equally evident that these concerns were addressed through a series of judicial interventions, which progressively infused the process with safeguards,” the Court said.Story continues below this adAlso Read | Special Intensive Revision (SIR): Why is it important? Why ECI is doing it now and what you need to doThe Court said that its interventions rendered the SIR process “constitutionally compliant.”“A process that may be perceived as exclusionary by some can, through appropriate safeguards, be rendered constitutionally compliant in execution,” the Court said.The Court termed its interventions to publish the complete list of approximately 65 lakh excluded electors, accompanied by reasons for their exclusion, “transformed what was initially an opaque administrative outcome into a verifiable and contestable process.”“These interventions operated as structural correctives that ensured the process remained aligned with the requirements of procedural fairness,” the Court said.Story continues below this adThe SC heard the case for over seven months from July 2025 and reserved its verdict in January.Apurva Vishwanath is the National Legal Editor at The Indian Express, where she leads the organization’s coverage of the Indian judiciary, constitutional law, and public policy. A law graduate with a B.A., LL.B (Hons) from Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Apurva brings over a decade of specialized experience to her reporting. She is an authority on judicial appointments and the Supreme Court Collegium, providing critical analysis of the country’s legal landscape. Before joining The Indian Express in 2019, she honed her expertise at The Print and Mint. Follow her insights on the intersection of law and governance on Twitter ... Read More © The Indian Express Pvt LtdTags:supreme court