The Supreme Court of India has upheld the legality of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) conducted by the Election Commission of India (ECI), ruling that the process is a legitimate means of ensuring electoral integrity.

印度最高法院維持了由印度選舉委員會（ECI）執行的「特別密集修訂」（SIR）之合法性，裁定該程序是確保選舉公正的合法手段。

The judicial review centered on whether the ECI exceeded its statutory authority under Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. Petitioners, including the Association for Democratic Reforms and various opposition legislators, contended that the SIR effectively transformed the ECI into a citizenship adjudication body, thereby reversing the legal presumption of citizenship for registered voters. They further alleged that the exercise resulted in significant disenfranchisement, citing the deletion of approximately 11.88% of the electorate in West Bengal prior to the April assembly elections.

此次司法審查的焦點在於 ECI 是否逾越了憲法第 324 條及 1950 年《人民代表法》第 21(3) 條賦予的法定權限。請願人（包括民主改革協會及多位反對派立法議員）主張，SIR 實際上將 ECI 轉變為一個公民身份判定機構，從而推翻了對已登記選民公民身份的法律推定。他們進一步指稱，此舉導致大量選民喪失投票權，並舉例在四月議會選舉前，西孟加拉邦約有 11.88% 的選民被剔除。

Conversely, the ECI maintained that the SIR was a necessary administrative mechanism to purge rolls of deceased, duplicate, or ineligible entries to safeguard the purity of the democratic process. The Court concurred, determining that the SIR possesses a direct nexus with the constitutional imperative of free and fair elections. The Bench clarified that while the ECI may conduct a limited inquiry into citizenship for electoral eligibility, such determinations do not constitute a final legal adjudication of citizenship. Consequently, the Court mandated that individuals excluded on citizenship grounds be referred to the competent authority under the Citizenship Act for formal determination.

相反地，ECI 主張 SIR 是必要的行政機制，旨在清除名冊中已故、重複或不合格的 entries，以維護民主程序的純潔性。法院對此表示贊同，認定 SIR 與憲法要求的自由公平選舉有直接關聯。法官明確指出，雖然 ECI 可以針對選舉資格對公民身份進行有限度的調查，但此類判定並不構成對公民身份的最終法律裁定。因此，法院要求將因公民身份而被剔除的人員，轉交至《公民法》下的主管機關進行正式判定。

Following the verdict, a sharp divergence in stakeholder positioning emerged. Representatives of the BJP characterized the ruling as a constitutional victory and a repudiation of opposition narratives. In contrast, opposition figures and legal activists described the judgment as a failure of judicial oversight, alleging that the process remained non-transparent and partisan. Some litigants argued that the Court focused on grievance redressal rather than the fundamental constitutionality of the mass re-verification exercise.

判決出爐後，持份者的立場出現顯著分歧。印度人民黨（BJP）代表將此次裁決描述為憲法上的勝利，並否定了反對派的論調。相比之下，反對派人士與法律活動家則將該判決描述為司法監督的失敗，指責程序缺乏透明度且具有黨派色彩。部分訴訟當事人認為，法院僅側重於申訴救濟，而非探討大規模重新核實行動的根本憲法正當性。

The Supreme Court has validated the ECI's authority to conduct the SIR, though it has established a procedural requirement to refer citizenship-based deletions to the Union Government for final adjudication.

最高法院確認了 ECI 執行 SIR 的權限，但同時建立了程序要求，將基於公民身份而剔除的名單轉交至聯邦政府進行最終裁定。