The much-awaited Supreme Court (SC) order on the constitutionality of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls (ER) undertaken by the Election Commission of India (ECI) is out, causing exultation and dismay in rival camps. I wonder if it surprised anyone.The SC first heard this petition on July 10 last year, soon after the ECI initiated the SIR process on June 24 2025 in Bihar. That the SC allowed the process to be completed in Bihar with an extremely tight deadline in view of the imminent assembly elections and, thereafter, in 12 other states/UTs, was a reasonable indication of the way it perceived the legality of the exercise. It tinkered with the process and raised inconvenient questions during the hearing, gladdening the hearts of the petitioners temporarily. But then it also said it would not allow anyone to obstruct the process. In fact, the SC enabled the ECI to continue the exercise in the face of alleged “non-cooperation” in West Bengal by appointing judicial officers and appellate tribunals to adjudicate and hear appeals. To now expect the SC to negate the exercise by delegitimising it was naïve.AdvertisementBefore we look at the order and its implications, it must be understood that this SC order doesn’t consider issues such as logical discrepancies or the inability of the 27 lakh deleted voters in phase two of the SIR to avail of the appellate process. It examines the constitutional authority of the ECI in conducting the SIR, the procedure followed, the documents prescribed for eligibility, and the scope of its inquiry into citizenship. It framed the following issues for consideration.One, whether the ECI has the power to conduct the impugned SIR? Two, whether the SIR is founded on a legitimate purpose, and whether the measures adopted are proportionate to the object sought to be achieved? Three, whether the procedure adopted is contrary to, or in violation of, the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960? Four, whether, in the exercise of its constitutional mandate of preparation and maintenance of ERs, the ECI is empowered to scrutinise the citizenship status of persons seeking inclusion or continuation in the ER?Also Read | Yogendra Yadav writes: In the West Bengal election, SIR and the anatomy of exclusionThe SC sees the SIR standing at the “intersection of two constitutional concerns” of including all eligible citizens and that the ER “must reflect the true composition of the political community”. It is satisfied that in its object and design, the SIR “bears a direct nexus to the constitutional goal of a free and fair election” as that depends upon the “integrity, accuracy and purity” of the ER, which forms the “foundation of the democratic process”. The SC is convinced that the “the material on record indicates that the scale of the problem” identified by the ECI was “systemic in nature, arising from cumulative inaccuracies over an extended period”, needing a comprehensive SIR because “such a problem does not readily admit of piecemeal solutions”.AdvertisementThe ECI now owes it to the people to share this “material on record” that prompted the exercise and present a complete report card on the health of the ERs following the SIR on the parameters of “integrity, accuracy and purity” and in comparison with the ERs prepared under its own supervision earlier.The SC finds the process and methodology followed by the ECI for the SIR as “optimal” and observes that it is “not open to this Court to supplant its own judgment in matters that concern the implementation of an exercise” for which the ECI is endowed with “institutional expertise”. At the same time, it finds that “the process, as initially designed, did raise legitimate concerns regarding documentation, transparency, and access”. The SC pats itself on the back for addressing these concerns through “a series of judicial interventions, which progressively infused the process with safeguards”, such as asking the ECI to treat the Aadhaar card as an additional 12th document of identity, and directing it to publish the list of 65 lakh electors excluded from Bihar’s draft roll, along with the reasons for such exclusion. In para 95, the SC says “the post-exercise data placed on record does not disclose a level of disenfranchisement so widespread or systemic as to indicate a constitutional infirmity in the design of the exercise.” I wonder if the SC took into account the over 27 lakh electors excluded in West Bengal.The SC gives a clean chit to the ECI on all counts, holding the SIR not to be in “direct conflict with the RP Act and the 1960 Rules”. Instead, it states that the exercise is “undertaken to advance the very objective which Part XV of the Constitution is designed to protect”. It finds that the exercise “satisfies the requirements of proportionality” with “sufficient procedural safeguards to prevent arbitrary exclusion”. The SC holds that inclusion in the electoral roll may have “a presumption of validity, such presumption is rebuttable” and doesn’t impose an embargo on the powers of the Commission to undertake the SIR and finds the resultant deletions not “contrary to the 1960 Rules”.you may likeAlso Read | Supreme Court upholds SIR, says ‘intended to secure free and fair elections’Even though the SC suggested the inclusion of Aadhaar, it validates the ECI’s documentation regime without commenting on whether those documents were sufficient for the ECI to be satisfied about the citizenship of electors. Even on the question of citizenship, which was the most contentious part of the SIR, the SC states that the ECI 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.” However, it holds that “such an enquiry does not amount to a determination of citizenship in the strict sense”. While it affects the individual’s entitlement to be included in the electoral roll, it doesn’t “divest the individual of claims of citizenship, nor does it foreclose a determination of that question by the Competent Authority under the Citizenship Act”.While excluding such persons from the ER, it is incumbent upon the ECI to refer them to the competent authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955 “for adjudication in accordance with law”. It becomes essential for the ECI to now disclose the number of such “ineligible” persons discovered through the SIR and refer them within four weeks to the competent authority for adjudicating their citizenship “before the next Parliamentary, Assembly, Local Body elections, whichever is earlier”.The SC order delivers a knockout punch that favours the ECI.The writer is a former election commissioner