{"id":385441,"date":"2026-05-28T18:30:29","date_gmt":"2026-05-28T13:00:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=385441"},"modified":"2026-05-28T18:36:25","modified_gmt":"2026-05-28T13:06:25","slug":"special-intensive-revision-sir-eci-validity-upheld-sc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/28\/special-intensive-revision-sir-eci-validity-upheld-sc\/","title":{"rendered":"Article 324 Is Not a Dead Letter; ECI’s Special Intensive Revision of Bihar Electoral Rolls Is Constitutionally Valid: Supreme Court"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court:<\/span> In a significant decision, while deliberating over the writ petitions challenging the validity of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process conducted by the Election Commission of India (ECI), the Bench of Surya Kant, CJI*<\/span> and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ., upheld the validity of the process conducted, holding that SIR exercise does not stand in direct conflict with the Representation of the People Act, 1950<\/a> (RP Act) and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960<\/a> (1960 Rules), and it does not detract from the constitutional imperative of free and fair elections. It was held that exercise of SIR is traceable to Section 21(3)<\/a> RP Act<\/a> read with Article 324<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>, undertaken to advance the very objective which Part XV of the Constitution<\/a> is designed to protect.<\/p>\n

Background: SIR notification and writ petitions<\/h3>\n

The present dispute arose in the aftermath of order dated 24 June 2025 (impugned order) issued by the ECI, directing the SIR of the electoral rolls in the State of Bihar. The process involved two major constitutional concerns, namely, no eligible citizen should be excluded from the electorate; secondly, the electoral roll must continue to reflect the true composition of the political community.<\/p>\n

The impugned order recorded that the last intensive revision in Bihar was conducted in 2003, and that, over the past two decades, substantial changes in the electoral rolls have occurred inter alia on account of rapid urbanisation and large–<\/span>scale migration. Therefore, in furtherance of its constitutional mandate to safeguard the integrity of the electoral rolls and ensure free and fair elections, the ECI resolved to undertake a nationwide SIR. Given that general elections to the Bihar Legislative Assembly were anticipated later in 2025, the ECI directed the conduct of SIR in the State of Bihar.<\/p>\n

In terms of Clause 11 of the impugned order, the ECI decided to treat the 2003 electoral roll, with 1 January 2003 as the qualifying date, as probative evidence of eligibility, unless rebutted. Clause 12 of the impugned order further stipulated that any person not listed in the 2003 roll must produce one or more prescribed government documents to establish their eligibility as an elector.<\/p>\n

The impugned order also provided that for the aforesaid purpose, the ECI shall release an enumeration form to be filled and submitted by 25 July 2025, failing which the elector’s name would be excluded from the draft rolls. Pertinently, the form provided an indicative list of eleven documents that could be submitted along with the enumeration form, each of which would be considered a sufficient document in itself.<\/p>\n

Also read:<\/span> Bihar’s Electoral Roll revision: Supreme Court urges Election Commission to accept Aadhaar, Ration Cards, and EPICs for voter identity verification<\/a><\/p>\n

Clause 14 of the impugned order read with the accompanying SIR Guidelines thereafter added that, after the publication of the draft roll, the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO)\/Assistant Electoral Registration Officer (AERO) were required to scrutinise the eligibility of the proposed electors in accordance with Article 326<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>, read with Sections 16<\/a> and 19<\/a> of the RP Act<\/a>. Upon such scrutiny, where the eligibility of any person is found to be doubtful, the ERO\/AERO was mandated to issue a show-cause notice setting out the grounds for the proposed exclusion, allow the concerned elector to submit a response, and thereafter render a reasoned and speaking order in the matter. Decision of the ERO shall be entitled to prefer an appeal before the District Magistrate under Section 24(a)<\/a> of the RP Act<\/a>, read with Rule 27 of the (1960 Rules). It was also stipulated that if the elector remains dissatisfied with the decision of the District Magistrate, a second appeal may be filed before the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) within thirty days, in terms of Section 24(b)<\/a> of the RP Act<\/a>, read with Rule 27 of the 1960 Rules.<\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/span> SIR 2025: Electoral Roll Revision Guidelines for 12 States and UTs<\/a><\/p>\n

It was further stipulated that Booth Level Officers (BLOs) would visit each household, distribute pre-filled enumeration forms to existing electors, and collect the duly filled forms along with requisite documents, with an additional facility for online submission and verification.<\/p>\n

Several writ petitions were filed assailing the impugned order directing SIR in Bihar. The petitioners contended that, unless quashed, the impugned order is liable to result in the arbitrary disenfranchisement of lakhs of voters in the State of Bihar, thereby imperilling the conduct of free and fair elections. The petitioners challenged the very authority of the ECI to embark upon the impugned exercise; the procedure and methodology adopted in carrying out the exercise, including the method prescribed by the ECI to ascertain the citizenship of the voters; and the propriety of its timing, given that elections to the Bihar Legislative Assembly were slated for November 2025.<\/p>\n

Issues for consideration and Court’s Assessment<\/h3>\n

1. Whether ECI has power to conduct the impugned Special Intensive Revision?<\/p>\n

Perusing the first issue, the Court stated that a plain reading of Articles 324 and 327 shows that they are not competing repositories of power. The Court opined that the ECI inherently possesses the jurisdiction to issue directions of a general and regulatory character to effectuate the constitutional purpose entrusted to it. Parliament by legislating under Article 327 does not reduce Article 324<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a> to a dead letter. The Court explained that Article 324<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a> remains plenary, serving as the foundational constitutional source of the ECI’s authority<\/span> over the preparation of electoral rolls and the conduct of elections.<\/span> Under this provision, the ECI cannot act in defiance of an express statutory prohibition. Conversely, parliamentary legislation cannot be deployed to extinguish the ECI’s overriding constitutional mandate.<\/p>\n

The Court further explained that Section 21(3)<\/a> RP Act<\/a> is a conscious attempt by the legislature to confer the power to undertake a special revision of the electoral rolls on the ECI. After delving into an in-depth analysis of Section 21(3)<\/a> RP Act<\/a>, the Court opined that “impugned SIR does not supplant the RP Act or the 1960 Rules. It rather breathes life into the constitutional mandate of Article 324 through the precise statutory conduit provided by Section 21(3). Therefore, it cannot be said that the Commission has acted in the teeth of an express statutory prohibition<\/span>”.<\/p>\n

2. Whether the impugned SIR is founded on a legitimate purpose, and if so, whether the measures adopted by the Election Commission of India are proportionate to the object sought to be achieved?<\/p>\n

Answering the second issue, the Court stated that the objective sought to be achieved by the ECI, namely, the restoration of accuracy, completeness, and integrity of the electoral roll, is not only legitimate but is integral to the constitutional mandate entrusted to it. The reasons furnished by the ECI cannot be characterised as extraneous or illusory; they bear a direct and rational nexus to the core function of maintaining a credible electoral process. “We are, therefore, unable to accept the contention that the Impugned SIR is devoid of a legitimate purpose. On the contrary, the exercise is firmly anchored in both constitutional principle and statutory design<\/span>.”<\/p>\n

The Court further explained that measures adopted during the SIR process are not only logically connected to the stated objective but are, in fact, intrinsically designed to achieve it. The process of house-to-house verification<\/span> directly addressed the concern of outdated or inaccurate entries by physically verifying the presence and eligibility of electors. Similarly, the requirement of<\/span> submitting the enumeration forms,<\/span> enabled the ECI to collect updated information<\/span> in a standardised format, thereby facilitating uniform scrutiny across constituencies. “The existence of large-scale migration, non-reporting of deaths, and duplication of entries are matters of common administrative experience, and are, in fact, recognised within the statutory scheme itself. The measures adopted by the Commission are directly tailored to address these very concerns<\/span>.”<\/p>\n

The Court further said that the imposition of procedural conditions such as verification of identity, proof of ordinary residence, and confirmation of eligibility cannot, by itself, be regarded as an impermissible restriction upon the right to vote. On the contrary, such conditions are intrinsic to the very preservation of that right, for they ensure that the electoral roll remains confined to those who are lawfully entitled to be included.<\/p>\n

3. Whether the procedure adopted by the Election Commission of India in conducting the impugned SIR is contrary to, or in violation of, the provisions of the RP Act and the 1960 Rules?<\/p>\n

Delving into the third issue, the Court explained that the distinction between an adjudicatory exercise and an inquisitorial\/ verification exercise assumes considerable significance. In an adjudicatory setting, the enquiry is triggered by a specific dispute, and the existing entry operates as a starting point carrying a presumption in its favour. In contrast, an intensive revision undertaken by the ECI, such as the impugned SIR exercise, is not predicated upon individual disputes but is aimed at a comprehensive re-examination of the electoral roll to ensure its accuracy, completeness, and integrity. When the ECI embarks upon such an exercise, it acts not as a mere adjudicator between competing claims but as a constitutional authority discharging a duty of systemic oversight.<\/p>\n

“We are also unable to accept the submission that the undertaking of an intensive verification exercise ipso facto reverses the burden of proof in a manner impermissible in law.<\/span>” the Court explained that the calling upon electors to furnish supporting material in the course of SIR does not amount to the negation of the presumption; rather, it reflects the procedural mechanism through which the ECI seeks to reaffirm or, correct existing entries. The presumption continues to operate, but it does not obviate the possibility of verification.<\/p>\n

The Court clarified that recognition of the ECI’s power to undertake an intensive revision does not dilute the requirement that such power be exercised in accordance with law.<\/p>\n

The Court thus opined that while inclusion in the electoral roll gives rise to a presumption of validity, such presumption is rebuttable<\/span> and cannot be construed as imposing a blanket embargo on the powers of the Commission to undertake an SIR.<\/p>\n

The Court further opined that deletions effected pursuant to the impugned SIR cannot be said to be contrary to the procedure<\/span> prescribed under Rule 21-A of the 1960 Rules. The safeguards of notice and hearing are preserved in substance, and the process adopted by the ECI remains within the bounds of the statutory mandate.<\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/span> ECI Implements Supreme Court Order: Aadhaar Now Valid for Identity in SIR Bihar<\/a><\/p>\n

The Court further held that documentation regime prescribed by the ECI represented a considered exercise of its administrative discretion in furtherance of its Constitutional mandate. The classification of documents, including the exclusion of certain categories, is based on intelligible criteria having a direct nexus with the objective of ensuring the integrity of the electoral roll. “We are, therefore, unable to hold that the impugned documentation framework is arbitrary or violative of the statutory scheme.<\/span>”<\/p>\n

4. In the exercise of its constitutional mandate of preparation and maintenance of electoral rolls, and in furtherance of the statutory conditions governing such registration, whether the ECI is empowered to scrutinise the citizenship status of persons seeking inclusion or continuation in the electoral roll?<\/p>\n

Answering the fourth issue, the Court pointed out that in view of the statutory requirement under Section 16<\/a> RP Act<\/a>, the ECI, in the course of preparing or revising electoral rolls, is undoubtedly empowered to examine questions bearing upon citizenship<\/span>. However, such an enquiry can only be made from the standpoint of determining inclusion or exclusion from the electoral roll<\/span> and must be undertaken with due regard to the presumption operating in favour of an elector whose name is already borne on the roll. It is within this confined statutory setting that the ECI assesses the material before it to arrive at a determination for electoral purposes. The entirety of this exercise remains amenable to judicial review<\/span>, thereby ensuring that the enquiry is conducted in accordance with law and within the bounds of procedural fairness. The Court however added that, this assessment is necessarily prima facie and contextual. Where the material furnished by an individual does not inspire confidence<\/span> or give rise to doubt, the ECI is within its authority to decline enrolment or to initiate action for deletion, strictly in accordance with law. However, it does not amount to a declaration that the individual is not a citizen of India<\/span>; it merely reflects the ECI’s inability to be satisfied, for electoral purposes, that the statutory conditions are met. “The consequence of such a determination is correspondingly limited. It affects the individual’s entitlement to be included in the electoral roll, and thereby their right to participate in the electoral process. It does not, however, operate to divest the individual of claims of citizenship, nor does it foreclose a determination of that question by the Competent Authority under the Citizenship Act.<\/span>”<\/p>\n

Hence the Court effectively opined that the ECI is empowered, in the exercise of its constitutional mandate, to undertake a limited enquiry into citizenship<\/span> for the purpose of satisfying itself as to eligibility for inclusion in the electoral roll. Such an enquiry does not amount to a determination of citizenship in the strict sense, and any action taken pursuant thereto is confined to electoral consequences alone.<\/p>\n

The Court further concluded that in cases where the ECI is not satisfied that a person meets the statutory conditions for inclusion in the electoral roll, it would be incumbent upon it to refer such an individual to the competent authority within the Central Government for adjudication in accordance with law. Any deletion effected on ground of citizenship shall, therefore, remain subject to the outcome of such adjudication by the appropriate authority.<\/p>\n

The Court directed that persons whose names have been deleted from the 2003 roll on account of the ECI being of the opinion that they are not citizens, the ECI shall refer such cases within four weeks to the Competent Authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955<\/a>, for adjudication of their citizenship. The Competent Authority shall take the necessary decision in accordance with law, preferably before the next Parliamentary, Assembly, Local Body elections, whichever is earlier, after giving notice and an opportunity of hearing to the deleted individuals, if any. In the event the Competent Authority holds that such deleted individuals are citizens, they shall be included in the electoral roll<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Additionally, all persons who are domiciled in Bihar and whose names have been erroneously deleted<\/span> on the ground that they are absent, dead, shifted or in duplication may assail<\/span> the decision of the ECI by way of judicial review.<\/p>\n

Decision<\/h3>\n

With the aforesaid assessment of the issues, the Court upheld the SIR conducted by ECI and ECI’s power to conduct such SIR thereby disposing of the petitions.<\/p>\n

[Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India, WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 640 OF 2025, decided on 27-5-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

*Judgment by CJI Surya Kant<\/a><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

For Petitioner(s):<\/span> Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Ms. Neha Rathi, AOR Ms. Kajal Giri, Adv. Mr. Amit Bhandari, Adv. Mr. Pranav Sachdeva, Adv. Ms. Priyansha Sharma, Adv. Ms. Somya Kumari, Adv. Mr. P. Rohit Ram, Adv. Mr. Prateek Yadav, Adv. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Ms. Shahrukh Alam, Adv. Mr. Amit Bhandari, Adv. Mr. Talha Abdul Rahman, AOR Ms. Priyansha Sharma, Adv. Mr. M Shaz Khan, Adv. Mr. Sudhanshu Tewari, Adv. Mr. Faizan Ahmed, Adv. Mr. Rafid Akhter, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Mishra, AOR Mr. Shadan Farasat, Sr. Adv. Mr. Harshit Anand, Adv. Mr. Kaustubh Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Yash S. Vijay, AOR Mr. Shikhar Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Joshua Tom Thomas, Adv. Mr. Haris Beeran, Adv. Mr. Azhar Assees, Adv. Mr. Anand B. Menon, Adv. Mr. Shaswat Jena, Adv. Ms. Rizwana R. Raj, Adv. Mr. Radha Shyam Jena, AOR Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, AOR Ms. Neha Rathi, Adv. Mr. Tushar Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Shourya Dasgupta, Adv. Mr. Satayam Singh, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Singh, Adv. Ms. Sneha Rani, Adv. Ms. Pragati Keshri, Adv. Mr. Pankaj Ray, Adv. Ms. Neema, AOR Mr. Raja Choudhary, Adv. Ms. Anushika Mishra, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Singh Chauhan, AOR Ms. Pinky Behera, AOR Mr. Atif Inam, AOR Mr. Aman Prasad, Adv. Mr. Nizam Pasha, Adv. Mr. Sidharth Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Arif Ali, Adv. Mr. Madhav Deepak, Adv. Mr. Abishek Jebaraj, AOR Ms. A Reyna Shruti, Adv. Ms. Sanjana Grace Thomas, Adv. Mr. D. P. Singh, Adv. Mr. Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Adv. Mr. PC Sen, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prasanna S., AOR Mr. Paras Nath Singh, Adv. Ms. Rupali Samuel, Adv. Ms. Shruti Narayan, Adv. Mr. Sayantan Chanda, Adv. Mr. Mohammad Afeef, Adv. Ms. Nida Khan Salim, Adv. Ms. Injila Muslim Zaidi, Adv. Mr. Maamid Ashish Reddy, Adv. Mr. Prasanna B, Adv. Ms. Ishita Tulsyan, Adv. Ms. Vrinda Grover, Adv. Mr. John Simte, Adv. Ms. Devika Tulsiani, Adv. Mr. Soutik Banerjee Adv. Mr. Aakarsh Kamra, AOR Mr. Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, AOR Mr. Ibad Mushtaq, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Rai, Adv. Ms. Gurneet Kaur, Adv. Dr. K.S. Chauhan, Sr. Adv. Mr. P.S. Teji, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ajit Kumar Ekka, Adv. Mr. Kriti Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Vishal, Adv. Ms. Divya Sinha, Adv. Mr. S. P. Singh, Adv. Mr. Rsm Kalky, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Ranjan, Adv. Ms. Aditi Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Sumit Kishore, Adv. Ms. Deeksha Singh, Adv. Mr. Alok Kumar, Adv. Dr. R K Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Kunal Kishore, Adv. Mr. Ravi Prakash, AOR Mr. Vijay Hansariya, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Ashwani Kumar Dubey, AOR Mr. Nikhil Upadhyay, Adv. Ms. Kavya Jhawar, Adv. Ms. Nandini Rai, Adv. Mr. Aashay Shukla, Adv. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prashanto Chandra Sen, Sr. Adv. Mr. Muhammad Ali Khan, Adv. Mr. Amit Bhandari, Adv. Mr. Omar Hoda, Adv. Ms. Eesha Bakshi, Adv. Mr. Uday Bhatia, Adv. Mr. Kamran Khan, Adv. Mr. Surya Kiran Singh, Adv. Mr. Aviral Jain, Adv. Ms. Ayesha Khan, Adv. Mr. Usman Ghani Khan, AOR Mr. Shoeb Alam, Sr. Adv. Ms. Fauzia Shakil, Adv. Mr. Ujjwal Singh, AOR Mr. Sivagnanam Karthikeyan, Adv. Mr. Aravind Raj, Adv Mr. Dev Sareen, Adv. Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv. Ms. Fauzia Shakil, AOR Ms. Aparajita Jamwal, Adv. Ms. Tasmiya Talaha, Adv. Mr. Khalid Ali, Adv. Ms. Nazmeen Ahmed, Adv.<\/p>\n

For Respondent(s):<\/span> Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Mr. Gaurang Bhushan, Adv. Ms. Sansriti Pathak, Adv. Mr. Bhakti Vardhan Singh, Adv. Mr. Prashant Singh-ii, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Aman Mehta, Adv. Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sukumar Pattjoshi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prateek Kumar, AOR Ms. Raina Anand, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Thakur, Adv. Ms. Sanjivani Pattjoshi, Adv. Mr. Deepak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Devansh Rai, Adv. Mr. Kumar Utsav, Adv. Ms. Simran Parmar, Adv. Ms. Anamika Mishra, Adv. Ms. Ananya Mishra, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr.Adv. Mr. Eklavya Dwivedi, AOR Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sidhant Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sahil Tagotra, AOR Mr. Prabhas Bajaj, Adv. Ms. Manyaa Chandok, Adv. Mr. Om Batra, Adv. Ms. Shreya Kasera, Adv. Mr. Kumar Utsav, Adv. Mr. Ashish Shukla, Adv. Ms. Simran Parmar, Adv. Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR Mr. Divyansh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Kumar Saurav, Adv. Mr. Shail Kumar Dwivedi, AOR Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Yadav, Adv. Ms. Vanshika Singh, Adv. Mr. Keshav Singh, Adv. Mr. Shadan Farasat, Sr. Adv. Mr. Harshit Anand, Adv. Mr. Kaustubh Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Yash S. Vijay, AOR Mr. Shikhar Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Joshua Tom Thomas, Adv. Mr. Prashant Kumar Umrao, AOR Mr. Prateek Som, Adv. Mr. Shivam Singh, Adv. Ms. Bahuli Sharma, Adv. Mr. Gopal Singh, AOR Mr. Akshat Bajpai, AOR Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Arya, Adv. Mr. Gaj Singh, Adv. Mr. Nikunj Gupta, Adv. Mr. Keshav Mittal, Adv. Mr. Chandan Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shoeb Alam, Sr. Adv. Ms. Fauzia Shakil, AOR Mr. Ujjwal Singh, Adv. Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari, AOR Mr. Arman Roop Sharma, Adv. Ms. Shimpy Arman Sharma, Adv. Mr. Pramod Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Vivek Tiwari, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Dubey, Adv. Ms. Saumya Mishra, Adv. Mr. Anuj Tiwari, AOR Mr. Naveen Sharma, AOR Mrs. Swati Bhushan Sharma, Adv. Mr. S.K. Sharma, Adv. Ms. Payal Gola, Adv. Mr. Samarvir Singh, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Lenin Singh Hijam, Adv. Gen, Sr, Adv. Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Mayank Sapra, Adv. Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv. Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Adv. Ms. Rajkumari Divyasana, Adv. Mr. P. V. Yogeswaran, AOR Ms. Shailja Singh, Adv. Mr. Karan Sharma, AOR Mr. Padmesh Mishra, A.A.G. Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, AOR Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, AOR Mr. Aryan Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Aakash Thakur, Adv. Mr. Nalin Talwar, Adv. Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR Mr. Yatharth Kansal, Adv. Mr. Srikanth Varma Mudunuru, Adv. Mr. Kunal Mimani, AOR Ms. Mrinal Elkar Mazumdar, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, Adv. Ms. Indira Bhakar, Adv. Mr. Yogesh Vats, Adv. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Vivek Singh, AOR Mr. Kunal Mimani, AOR Mr. Anilendra Pandey, AOR Mr. Rajeev Kumar Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Kamlesh Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Animesh Shukla, Adv. Ms. Aarati Sah, Adv. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Rai, Sr. Adv. Ms. Farhat Naim, Adv. Mr. Vinay Kumar Rai, Adv. Mrs. Rajshree Rai, Adv. Ms. Modoyia Kayina, Adv. Mr. Paras Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Virendra Singh, Adv. Mr. Devi Prasad Semwal, Adv. Ms. Shweta, Adv. Mr. Shreyansh Singh, Adv. Mr. Ashok Pratap Rai, Adv. For M\/S R And R Law Associates, AOR Mr. Anand Nandan, Adv. Mr. Kuldeep Mishra, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR Mr. Divyansh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Kumar Saurav, Adv. Mr. Kumar Sambhrant Krishna, AOR Mr. Binay Kumar, Adv. Mr. Brajesh Kumar, Adv. Dr. Siddhartha Priya Ashok, AOR Mr. Chandan Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Babita, Adv. Ms. Trisha Chakraborty, Adv. Mr. Nishesh Sharma, AOR Mr. Shiva Nand Mishra, Adv. Mr. Syed Mehdi Imam, AOR Mr. Kaleeswaram Raj, Adv. Mr. Mohammed Sadique T.A., AOR Mrs. Thulasi K Raj, Adv. Ms. Chinnu Maria Antony, Adv. Mrs. Athira Nandakumar, Adv. Mr. Kailash Prashad Pandey, AOR Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Chawla, Adv. Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Adv. Mr. Mahi Pal Singh, Adv. Mr. Anupam Kumar, Adv. Mr. Narendra Pal Sharma, Adv. Mr. Satvik Sharma, Adv. Mr. Varun Varma, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Kumar Solanki, Adv. Ms. Shreya Jha, Adv. Ms. Niharika Dwivedi, Adv. Ms. Asmita Mishra, Adv. Ms. Swati Vishan, Adv. Ms. Charanjeet Sidhu, Adv. Ms. Divya Mishra, Adv. Ms. Suresh Kumari, Adv. Ms. Laveena Mishra, Adv. Mr. D.P. Singh, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Singh, Adv. Mr. Javed Raza, Adv. Mr. Shubham Rajhans, Adv. Mr. Ishank Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Prakhar Shukla, Adv. Mr. Jatin Malik, Adv. Mr. Pawan Kumar, Adv. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Mudgal, Adv. Mr. Kailash Chandra Mudgal, Adv. Ms. Manisha Chawla, Adv. Mr. Jogendra Kumar, Adv. Mr. Desh Pal Singh, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Singh Dingra, Adv. Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Jain, Adv. Ms. Kumud Lata Das, AOR Mr. Barun Kumar Sinha, Adv. Mrs. Pratibha Sinha, Adv. Mr. Sneh Vardhan, Adv. Mr. Chhail Bihari Singh, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Mudgal, Adv. Mr. Ritu Raj, Adv. Mr. Pankaj Kumar Shukla, Adv. Mrs. Kanika, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Singh, Adv. Mr. Anantha Narayana M.G., AOR Mr. Pawan Kumar Saxena, Adv. Mr. Mata Prasad Singh, Adv. Mr. Ram Narayan Mohanty, Adv. Mr. Ankit Bhatnagar, Adv. Mr. Ravi Bhushan Pandey, Adv. Mr. Charan Dass, Adv. Mr. Jasveer Rana, Adv. Ms. Jitesh Kumari, Adv.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Court held that ECI is empowered, in the exercise of its constitutional mandate, to undertake a limited enquiry into citizenship for the purpose of satisfying itself as to eligibility for inclusion in the electoral roll.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":385452,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,9],"tags":[3670,105520,99458,3398,105522,93707,34878,13881,14051,48118,105519,40463,9711,50565,91622,105521,91621,99454],"class_list":["post-385441","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-supremecourt","tag-Aadhaar_card","tag-bihar-electoral-rolls-revision","tag-bihar-sir","tag-Citizenship","tag-citizenship-enquiry","tag-cji-surya-kant","tag-eci","tag-election-commission-of-india","tag-elections","tag-electoral-rolls","tag-free-fair-elections","tag-ration-cards","tag-right-to-vote","tag-sir","tag-sir-2025","tag-sir-guidelines","tag-special-intensive-revision","tag-wb-sir"],"yoast_head":"\nSC Upholds ECI's Power to Conduct Special Intensive Revision of Bihar Electoral Rolls| SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"he Supreme Court upholds the validity of the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision of Bihar's electoral rolls, holding it traceable to Section 21(3) of the RP Act read with Article 324 of the Constitution and empowers ECI to conduct a limited citizenship enquiry for electoral purposes.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/28\/special-intensive-revision-sir-eci-validity-upheld-sc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Article 324 Is Not a Dead Letter; ECI's Special Intensive Revision of Bihar Electoral Rolls Is Constitutionally Valid: Supreme Court\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"he Supreme Court upholds the validity of the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision of Bihar's electoral rolls, holding it traceable to Section 21(3) of the RP Act read with Article 324 of the Constitution and empowers ECI to conduct a limited citizenship enquiry for electoral purposes.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/28\/special-intensive-revision-sir-eci-validity-upheld-sc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-05-28T13:00:29+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-05-28T13:06:25+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/blog-26-33.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Article 324 Is Not a Dead Letter; ECI's Special Intensive Revision of Bihar Electoral Rolls Is Constitutionally Valid: Supreme Court\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"NewsArticle\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/28\\\/special-intensive-revision-sir-eci-validity-upheld-sc\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/28\\\/special-intensive-revision-sir-eci-validity-upheld-sc\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Sucheta\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\"},\"headline\":\"Article 324 Is Not a Dead Letter; ECI’s Special Intensive Revision of Bihar Electoral Rolls Is Constitutionally Valid: Supreme Court\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-05-28T13:00:29+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-05-28T13:06:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/28\\\/special-intensive-revision-sir-eci-validity-upheld-sc\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":3900,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/28\\\/special-intensive-revision-sir-eci-validity-upheld-sc\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/Special-Intensive-Revision-Bihar.webp\",\"keywords\":[\"Aadhaar card\",\"Bihar Electoral Rolls Revision\",\"Bihar SIR\",\"Citizenship\",\"citizenship enquiry\",\"CJI Surya Kant\",\"ECI\",\"Election Commission of India\",\"Elections\",\"Electoral Rolls\",\"free fair elections\",\"Ration Cards\",\"right to vote\",\"SIR\",\"SIR 2025\",\"SIR guidelines\",\"Special Intensive Revision\",\"WB SIR\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Briefs\",\"Supreme Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/28\\\/special-intensive-revision-sir-eci-validity-upheld-sc\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/28\\\/special-intensive-revision-sir-eci-validity-upheld-sc\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/28\\\/special-intensive-revision-sir-eci-validity-upheld-sc\\\/\",\"name\":\"SC Upholds ECI's Power to Conduct Special Intensive Revision of Bihar Electoral Rolls| SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/28\\\/special-intensive-revision-sir-eci-validity-upheld-sc\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/28\\\/special-intensive-revision-sir-eci-validity-upheld-sc\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/Special-Intensive-Revision-Bihar.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-05-28T13:00:29+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-05-28T13:06:25+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\"},\"description\":\"he Supreme Court upholds the validity of the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision of Bihar's electoral rolls, holding it traceable to Section 21(3) of the RP Act read with Article 324 of the Constitution and empowers ECI to conduct a limited citizenship enquiry for electoral purposes.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/28\\\/special-intensive-revision-sir-eci-validity-upheld-sc\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/28\\\/special-intensive-revision-sir-eci-validity-upheld-sc\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/28\\\/special-intensive-revision-sir-eci-validity-upheld-sc\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/Special-Intensive-Revision-Bihar.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/Special-Intensive-Revision-Bihar.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Special Intensive Revision Bihar\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/28\\\/special-intensive-revision-sir-eci-validity-upheld-sc\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Article 324 Is Not a Dead Letter; ECI’s Special Intensive Revision of Bihar Electoral Rolls Is Constitutionally Valid: Supreme Court\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\",\"name\":\"Sucheta\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Sucheta\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/legal_editor\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"SC Upholds ECI's Power to Conduct Special Intensive Revision of Bihar Electoral Rolls| SCC Times","description":"he Supreme Court upholds the validity of the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision of Bihar's electoral rolls, holding it traceable to Section 21(3) of the RP Act read with Article 324 of the Constitution and empowers ECI to conduct a limited citizenship enquiry for electoral purposes.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/28\/special-intensive-revision-sir-eci-validity-upheld-sc\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Article 324 Is Not a Dead Letter; ECI's Special Intensive Revision of Bihar Electoral Rolls Is Constitutionally Valid: Supreme Court","og_description":"he Supreme Court upholds the validity of the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision of Bihar's electoral rolls, holding it traceable to Section 21(3) of the RP Act read with Article 324 of the Constitution and empowers ECI to conduct a limited citizenship enquiry for electoral purposes.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/28\/special-intensive-revision-sir-eci-validity-upheld-sc\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-05-28T13:00:29+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-05-28T13:06:25+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/blog-26-33.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Sucheta","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Article 324 Is Not a Dead Letter; ECI's Special Intensive Revision of Bihar Electoral Rolls Is Constitutionally Valid: Supreme Court","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Sucheta","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"NewsArticle","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/28\/special-intensive-revision-sir-eci-validity-upheld-sc\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/28\/special-intensive-revision-sir-eci-validity-upheld-sc\/"},"author":{"name":"Sucheta","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa"},"headline":"Article 324 Is Not a Dead Letter; ECI’s Special Intensive Revision of Bihar Electoral Rolls Is Constitutionally Valid: Supreme Court","datePublished":"2026-05-28T13:00:29+00:00","dateModified":"2026-05-28T13:06:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/28\/special-intensive-revision-sir-eci-validity-upheld-sc\/"},"wordCount":3900,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/28\/special-intensive-revision-sir-eci-validity-upheld-sc\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Special-Intensive-Revision-Bihar.webp","keywords":["Aadhaar card","Bihar Electoral Rolls Revision","Bihar SIR","Citizenship","citizenship enquiry","CJI Surya Kant","ECI","Election Commission of India","Elections","Electoral Rolls","free fair elections","Ration Cards","right to vote","SIR","SIR 2025","SIR guidelines","Special Intensive Revision","WB SIR"],"articleSection":["Case Briefs","Supreme Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/28\/special-intensive-revision-sir-eci-validity-upheld-sc\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/28\/special-intensive-revision-sir-eci-validity-upheld-sc\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/28\/special-intensive-revision-sir-eci-validity-upheld-sc\/","name":"SC Upholds ECI's Power to Conduct Special Intensive Revision of Bihar Electoral Rolls| SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/28\/special-intensive-revision-sir-eci-validity-upheld-sc\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/28\/special-intensive-revision-sir-eci-validity-upheld-sc\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Special-Intensive-Revision-Bihar.webp","datePublished":"2026-05-28T13:00:29+00:00","dateModified":"2026-05-28T13:06:25+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa"},"description":"he Supreme Court upholds the validity of the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision of Bihar's electoral rolls, holding it traceable to Section 21(3) of the RP Act read with Article 324 of the Constitution and empowers ECI to conduct a limited citizenship enquiry for electoral purposes.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/28\/special-intensive-revision-sir-eci-validity-upheld-sc\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/28\/special-intensive-revision-sir-eci-validity-upheld-sc\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/28\/special-intensive-revision-sir-eci-validity-upheld-sc\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Special-Intensive-Revision-Bihar.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Special-Intensive-Revision-Bihar.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Special Intensive Revision Bihar"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/28\/special-intensive-revision-sir-eci-validity-upheld-sc\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Article 324 Is Not a Dead Letter; ECI’s Special Intensive Revision of Bihar Electoral Rolls Is Constitutionally Valid: Supreme Court"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa","name":"Sucheta","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Sucheta"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Special-Intensive-Revision-Bihar.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/385441","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=385441"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/385441\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":385454,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/385441\/revisions\/385454"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/385452"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=385441"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=385441"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=385441"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}