The Supreme Court of India is scheduled to deliver a verdict on the constitutional validity of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) conducted by the Election Commission of India (ECI).

印度最高法院預計將針對印度選舉委員會 (ECI) 進行的「特別密集修訂」(SIR) 在憲法上的有效性做出裁決。

The litigation, initiated by the Association for Democratic Reforms, the People’s Union for Civil Liberties, and various political figures, contests the operational framework of the SIR. The petitioners posit that the ECI exceeded its statutory mandate by functioning as a citizenship adjudication body, thereby shifting the evidentiary burden onto voters to prove their nationality. This process, which commenced in Bihar in June 2025 and expanded to other regions, required voters to provide documentation linking them to 2002 or 2003 electoral rolls. In West Bengal, this resulted in the excision of approximately 9.1 million names, representing 11.88% of the electorate, prior to the April assembly elections.

這起訴訟由民主改革協會、公民自由人民聯盟及多位政治人物發起，旨在挑戰 SIR 的運作框架。請願人主張，ECI 充當了公民身份裁決機構，從而超越了其法定職權，將證明國籍的舉證責任轉嫁給選民。此過程於 2025 年 6 月在比哈爾邦開始並擴展至其他地區，要求選民提供能將其與 2002 年或 2003 年選民名冊關聯的證明文件。在西孟加拉邦，這導致在 4 月的議會選舉前，約有 910 萬個名字被刪除，佔選民人數的 11.88%。

Conversely, the ECI maintains that the SIR is a necessary administrative mechanism to ensure the integrity of electoral rolls by removing ineligible or deceased entries. The commission asserts that its actions are consistent with Article 326 of the Constitution and do not constitute a legal determination of citizenship. The judicial bench, comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, has previously emphasized that the ECI's powers are not absolute and must adhere to principles of natural justice. Consequently, the court had issued interim directives to expand the list of acceptable identification documents to facilitate mass inclusion.

相反地，ECI 主張 SIR 是確保選民名冊完整性的必要行政機制，旨在刪除不合格或已故者的條目。委員會聲明其行為符合憲法第 326 條，並不構成對公民身份的法律判定。由首席大法官 Surya Kant 和法官 Joymalya Bagchi 組成的審判席此前強調，ECI 的權力並非絕對，必須遵循自然正義原則。因此，法院曾發布臨時指令，擴大可接受的身份證明文件清單，以促進大規模納入。

Furthermore, the court is tasked with resolving a doctrinal conflict regarding the right to voter registration. The impending judgment will determine whether this right is strictly statutory, as per Kuldip Nayar Vs Union of India (2006), or if it possesses constitutional protections under Articles 14, 19, and 21, as suggested by subsequent jurisprudence.

此外，法院還需解決關於選民登記權的法理衝突。即將作出的判決將決定該項權利是純粹的法定權利（根據 2006 年 Kuldip Nayar 訴印度聯邦案），還是如後續法理所示，在憲法第 14、19 和 21 條下享有憲法保障。

The Supreme Court's forthcoming ruling will define the limits of the ECI's authority and the procedural requirements for the deletion of voters from electoral rolls.

最高法院即將作出的裁決將定義 ECI 權力的界限，以及從選民名冊中刪除選民的程序要求。