The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the constitutional validity of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls undertaken by the Election Commission, saying it advanced the constitutional imperative of free and fair elections.A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi ruled that the object sought to be achieved by the SIR had a direct nexus with the constitutional goal of ensuring free and fair elections which did not rest merely on the mechanics of polling but fundamentally depended on the “integrity, accuracy, and credibility of the electoral rolls, which formed the foundation of the democratic process.”The Bench held that the Election Commission has the power and authority to conduct SIR under Article 324 of the Constitution read with Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the Rules framed thereunder.“When the statute itself authorises a special revision at any time for reasons to be recorded and in such manner as the Election Commission may deem fit, the impugned exercise cannot be invalidated merely because it does not conform in every respect to the ordinary modalities contemplated for routine revision,” CJI Kant said, pronouncing the verdict.“In our considered opinion, the impugned SIR does not supplant the Representation of the People Act and the Rules. Rather it breathes life into the constitutional mandate under Article 324 within the precise statutory contours provided by Section 21(3). Therefore, it cannot be said that the (Election) Commission has acted in excess of its statutory powers,” Justice Kant said.The Bench, however, clarified that exclusion from electoral rolls would not have any impact on the citizenship of the persons concerned.It asked the poll panel to refer the names of those excluded on account of not being citizens of India to the Government of India for determination of their citizenship in terms of provisions of the Citizenship Act.“Upon detailed consideration, we have come to the conclusion that, in view of the statutory requirement under Section 16 of the Representation of the People Act, the Commission, in the course of preparing or revising electoral rolls, is undoubtedly empowered to examine questions bearing upon citizenship,” the top court said.“The consequence of such a citizenship determination is correspondingly limited. It affects the individual’s entitlement to be included in the electoral rolls and thereby the right to participate in the electoral process. It does not, however, operate to divest the individual of claims to citizenship, nor does it foreclose adjudication of that question by the competent authority under the Citizenship Act,” the Bench said, allaying fears that those excluded from voter list would lose citizenship.The Bench said that if the poll panel was not satisfied that a person fulfilled statutory conditions for inclusion in electoral rolls, it had to refer such cases to the competent authority of the Union Government for adjudication in accordance with law.“The Commission’s determination, being confined to electoral purposes, cannot assume finality on the question of citizenship. Any deletion effected on this ground shall therefore remain subject to the outcome of adjudication by the competent authority,” the top court said.The verdict came on petitions filed by the Association of Democratic Reforms, TMC MP Mahua Moitra, RJD MP Manoj Jha, Congress MP KC Venugopal, NCP (SP) MP Supriya Sule, activist Yogendra Yadav and others challenging the Election Commission’s notifications for SIR in Bihar and other states.The petitioners alleged that legitimate voters were being excluded from electoral rolls in the SIR even as the poll panel asserted that the deletions were on account of death and migration.Assembly elections have already been held in Bihar, West Bengal, Assam, Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Puducherry after completion of SIR of electoral rolls while it’s underway in some other states going to polls next year.