On January 22, 2026, the Supreme Court asked if the Election Commission of India had clearly explained illegal immigration as a reason for the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. Nearly 6.5 crore names were removed from draft voter lists in nine States and three Union Territories. In Uttar Pradesh, about 3.26 crore voters were asked to prove their citizenship. Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi argued that the Commission is allowed by Article 324 of the Constitution to verify citizenship, which is needed under Article 326 to vote. He cited the 2003 Citizenship Act amendments that made citizenship rules stricter and introduced the term 'illegal immigrant.' Justice Joymalya Bagchi said the SIR notification only mentioned 'frequent migration,' not illegal immigration clearly. "Was the requirement of examination of citizenship in light of 2003 amendments to the Citizenship Act a trigger to hold the SIR in 2025? If so, that trigger does not have an eloquent expression in the SIR notification," Justice Bagchi asked. Mr. Dwivedi agreed the term 'illegal migration' could have been better stated. The judge noted the poll body's use of 'migration' seemed to mean inter-State movement, which is lawful. Illegal immigration refers to crossing borders unlawfully, which was not clearly mentioned in the SIR notification. The Bench questioned what exactly the Election Commission had in mind when ordering the SIR. Was it rapid urbanisation and general migration or illegal immigration? Mr. Dwivedi said the 2003 law changes had never been applied in voter roll revisions until now. He said the current SIR was the right time to include citizenship verification under the updated rules. The Court emphasized that over 20 years of population shifts and urbanisation had caused voter list errors. It asked if the Election Commission was focusing on general migration issues or illegal immigration. The clarification was deemed necessary as the SIR impacts millions of voters.