Supreme Court ने ECI के राज्य‑व्यापी SIR को मान्यता दी – चुनावी अखंडता के लिए निहितार्थ

<h2>Supreme Court Upholds ECI’s State‑wide SIR of Electoral Rolls – Implications for Electoral Integrity</h2> <p>The <span class="key-term" data-definition="Supreme Court of India — the apex judicial body that interprets the Constitution and adjudicates disputes, crucial for GS2: Polity">Supreme Court</span> on Wednesday, 2026, affirmed the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Election Commission of India (ECI) — autonomous constitutional authority responsible for administering elections, a key institution in GS2: Polity">ECI</span>'s <span class="key-term" data-definition="Specific Incremental Revision (SIR) — a systematic cleaning of electoral rolls to delete ineligible entries, impacting electoral integrity (GS2: Polity)">SIR</span> as a step toward free and fair elections. The judgment comes after the exercise had already been completed in Bihar and in 12 other states and union territories during phase 2 of the roll‑cleaning drive.</p> <h3>Key Developments</h3> <ul> <li>The Court finally addressed the constitutional validity of the SIR, rejecting the petitioners' claim that <span class="key-term" data-definition="Section 21(3) — provision allowing the ECI to conduct a statewide revision of rolls, an exceptional power under the Act (GS2: Polity)">Section 21(3)</span> of the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Representation of the People Act, 1951 — legislation governing conduct of elections and maintenance of electoral rolls (GS2: Polity)">Representation of the People Act</span> permits only constituency‑specific revisions.</li> <li>The Court held that the word “any” in the statute cannot be narrowed to “only”, allowing a systematic, state‑wide clean‑up to address migration and churn.</li> <li>It distinguished between an “adjudicatory” exercise (where the presumption of voter validity stands) and an “inquisitorial” one (where each voter must prove entitlement anew), but did not fully examine the practical flaws of the SIR.</li> <li>Retrospective validation was granted, effectively confirming the deletions that had already taken place.</li> </ul> <h3>Important Facts</h3> <ul> <li>More than <strong>10 % of the total rolls</strong> were trimmed, amounting to roughly <strong>6.5 crore</strong> deletions nationwide.</li> <li>A noticeable drop in the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Gender ratio in electoral rolls — proportion of female to male voters, an indicator of gender equity in political participation (GS2: Polity)">gender ratio</span> was observed in most states, except Tamil Nadu.</li> <li>In West Bengal, the SIR led to arbitrary deletions, disproportionately affecting minorities and the under‑privileged, with statistical analyses suggesting an impact on poll outcomes in several constituencies.</li> <li>The case was filed by the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) — NGO that monitors electoral data and advocates for reforms, often a petitioner in court cases (GS2: Polity)">ADR</spa