Right Word | A Verdict That Dismantles The ‘Theft Of Votes’ Narrative

As the Opposition keeps alleging “theft of votes” and questioning EC and the Modi government, the Supreme Court’s May 2026 order on SIR gives a legal answer to the claim

Got Question about the News?

For months, the Opposition has accused the Narendra Modi government and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) of “vote chori" with support of the Election Commission of India (ECI). Earlier, the charge hinged on the use of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs), but when the accusations fell flat on their face, now the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls has been made central to that charge. The Supreme Court’s judgment of May 27, 2026, in the case Association for Democratic Reforms & Ors. versus Election Commission of India & Ors is an important reference point in this debate.

Opinion | India's Defence Diplomacy Has A New Roadmap: What RAKSHA Means For Next Decade

Opinion: The Cinema Hall Has A Lakshmana Rekha. OTT Needs One Too

Opinion: Why Demography Panel’s Religious Data Drive Is Crucial For India’s Future

Opinion | Real Deal: The Girls Bollywood Didn’t Quite Launch

Most of the petitions were filed in June last year after the EC decided to conduct SIR in Bihar. The petitioners included the Association for Democratic Reforms, activist Yogendra Yadav, and MPs Mahua Moitra (TMC), Manoj Jha (RJD), KC Venugopal (Congress) and Supriya Sule (NCP-SP).

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi framed four questions: Did the EC have the power to conduct SIR? Was it founded on a legitimate purpose and supported by proportionate measures? Did its procedure violate the Representation of the People Act, 1950, or the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960? And could the EC scrutinise the citizenship of those seeking inclusion in the rolls?

Claim 1: The EC had no power to do this

The court rejected this. CJI Surya Kant held that 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 exercise cannot be invalidated merely because it departs from the modalities of a routine revision.

In the court’s words, the SIR “does not supplant the Representation of the People........

© News18