On January 29, 2026, the Supreme Court reserved its judgment on petitions challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise in Bihar. The hearing was led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. Advocates Prashant Bhushan and Neha Rathi, representing the NGO Association for Democratic Reforms, argued that the Election Commission (EC) exceeded its authority by determining citizenship during the SIR process. Bhushan said, "EC says its power to control over and conduct of elections under Article 324 is a carte blanche, not bound by any law, or rules, or any manual. EC says we can do what we want or how we want. But no authority can act arbitrarily or without any good reason." The petitioners highlighted that the SIR caused many voters, especially women and migrant workers, to lose their place on electoral rolls due to difficulties in completing forms or documents verification. Bhushan questioned the authority of Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) to verify citizenship by asking, "The Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) on the ground asks for either a passport or a birth certificate to determine citizenship. What about people who have neither? Besides, who has empowered the ERO with the authority to determine citizenship?" He added that Form 6 requires only a self-declaration of citizenship, not scrutiny by officials. Advocate Vrinda Grover also stated that the SIR process was like "a statutory amendment done in the garb of a notification," demanding clarity on the Election Commission’s source of power. The Supreme Court's verdict will be crucial for the future of similar electoral roll revisions across India.