Parties and roles: Association for Democratic Reforms is the petitioner who initiated or carried the matter to the Supreme Court. Election Commission of India (Bihar Special Intensive Revision) is the respondent opposing the relief or defending the challenged action, decision, law or proceeding. The labels “plaintiff” and “defendant” are generally not used here because this is a constitutional writ proceeding. The Election Commission undertook Bihar's first intensive roll revision in about two decades, citing migration, deaths and duplicate or ineligible entries. Voters present on the 2003 roll received a presumption of eligibility, while others had to submit forms and listed documents. Petitioners feared mass exclusion, unequal burdens and an indirect citizenship-verification exercise outside the Citizenship Act. The litigation examined both the Commission's constitutional independence and the due-process protections owed to millions whose right to vote depended on accurate inclusion. Procedural setting: 24 Jun 2025: Election Commission ordered Special Intensive Revision of Bihar electoral rolls using the 2003 roll as a baseline. | Jul-Sep 2025: Supreme Court issued interim transparency, assistance and Aadhaar-related directions. | 30 Sep 2025: Final roll published. | Nov 2025: Bihar Assembly election held. | 27 May 2026: Court upheld the revision with safeguards. The central problem before the Court was did the Election Commission have power to conduct a statewide Special Intensive Revision? Were the baseline, documentation rules and procedure proportionate and lawful? May the Commission conduct a limited citizenship inquiry for electoral eligibility? The controversy was considered in the framework of Representation of the People Act, 1950, ss.16, 21, 23 and 24; Registration of Electors Rules, 1960; Citizenship Act, 1955; Aadhaar Act, 2016, together with Constitution arts.14, 21, 324, 325 and 326. The wider importance of the case lies in electoral-roll integrity; right to vote; proportionality; procedural fairness; constitutional authority of Election Commission; limited citizenship inquiry.

Petitioners argued the compressed documentation process, 2003 baseline and threatened exclusions were arbitrary and inconsistent with the RP Act and Rules. The Commission argued Article 324 and Section 21(3) authorised a special revision needed to restore roll integrity, with notice, hearing and appeals protecting individuals. Competing positions in context: Association for Democratic Reforms's position: as the petitioner, Association for Democratic Reforms sought the relief indicated by the questions of law and challenged the opposing action or interpretation. The claim was that the Court should apply the governing provisions consistently with Electoral-roll integrity; right to vote; proportionality; procedural fairness; constitutional authority of Election Commission; limited citizenship inquiry. Election Commission of India (Bihar Special Intensive Revision)'s position: as respondent, Election Commission of India (Bihar Special Intensive Revision) resisted that relief, defended the impugned measure or decision, or proposed a narrower interpretation of the Court's power and the applicable law. The Court therefore had to test these submissions against Representation of the People Act, 1950, ss.16, 21, 23 and 24; Registration of Electors Rules, 1960; Citizenship Act, 1955; Aadhaar Act, 2016 and Constitution arts.14, 21, 324, 325 and 326, the record of the proceedings and binding precedent. This summary states the principal controversy in accessible language; the official judgment remains authoritative for counsel-specific submissions and paragraph references.

The Court upheld the Bihar revision as traceable to Article 324 and Section 21(3), supported by legitimate roll-integrity aims and adequate safeguards as judicially supplemented. The Commission may make a limited electoral inquiry into citizenship but cannot finally adjudicate citizenship under the Citizenship Act; disputed cases must be referred to the competent authority. Notice, reasons, hearing, appeals and judicial review remain essential, and wrongful deletions can be challenged. Effect of the decision: the ruling explains or applies Electoral-roll integrity; right to vote; proportionality; procedural fairness; constitutional authority of Election Commission; limited citizenship inquiry and binds the parties to the operative directions made in W.P.(C) No. 640/2025 and connected petitions. It also guides lower courts and public authorities on materially similar questions under Representation of the People Act, 1950, ss.16, 21, 23 and 24; Registration of Electors Rules, 1960; Citizenship Act, 1955; Aadhaar Act, 2016. Scope and caution: only the ratio decidendi and operative directions of the signed judgment are binding; summaries should not be treated as substitutes for the judgment, separate opinions, later review orders or subsequent precedent.

Representation of the People Act, 1950, ss.16, 21, 23 and 24; Registration of Electors Rules, 1960; Citizenship Act, 1955; Aadhaar Act, 2016

Constitution arts.14, 21, 324, 325 and 326

Electoral-roll integrity; right to vote; proportionality; procedural fairness; constitutional authority of Election Commission; limited citizenship inquiry