New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that Election Commission of India (ECI) did not “act outside its statutory powers” while conducting the Special In-depth Review (SIR), ruling that the exercise cannot be termed “ultra vires merely because it is different from the normal vetting process”.According to Live Law, the Supreme Court ruled, “The SIR meets proportionality and is clearly not excessive. It was established with the constitutional objective of restoring the accuracy of the electoral rolls. The measures adopted by the ECI cannot be considered disproportionate.”Terming the controversial roll revision as “legally valid”, the apex court said the Election Commission has not violated the Representation of the People Act (RPA) by ordering special intensive revision of the Bihar voter list as such an exercise ensures the purity of the voter list and helps in free and fair elections.A bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi delivered the verdict on Wednesday after reserving the verdict in January this year after an extensive hearing in the case.However, the Supreme Court said that the election body cannot determine the citizenship of a voter. The court said that the determination of citizenship by the Election Commission for inclusion in the electoral roll is not final as it has to be scrutinized by the Central Government after giving adequate opportunity to the doubtful voter removed from the electoral roll.Meanwhile, the top court asked the Election Commission to send within four weeks the names of persons who were removed from the voter list due to doubtful citizenship to the Union Home Ministry, which will carry out the detailed process to determine their citizenship.The petitions challenged the legality of the Special Intensive Review (SIR) exercise conducted by the ECI, arguing that the process went beyond the powers given to the election body under Article 326 of the Constitution, the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the rules made thereunder.Read this also Pre-SIR exercise finds logical discrepancies in 20% of mapped voters in PunjabThe controversy largely centered on the ECI’s stipulation that voters whose names did not appear in the 2002 voter list or, in some states, the 2003 voter list would have to prove ancestral connection to the person whose name appears in those electoral records.The petitioners had argued before the top court that this situation threatens to disenfranchise genuine voters, especially those from marginalized and migrant communities, who often lack documentary evidence to trace their lineage to the old voter list.During the hearing, the Supreme Court had issued interim directions aimed at improving transparency and reducing hardship for voters affected by the SIR practice in several states and union territories.The polling body had initially listed 11 documents for verification. However, the apex court later directed that Aadhaar also be accepted as an additional document for the SIR process.Most of the petitions were filed after the ECI started the SIR exercise in Bihar in June last year.The amendment process was later extended to several other states and union territories, including West Bengal, Kerala and Tamil Nadu.Defending the process before the top court, the ECI had said the amendment was necessary to maintain the purity of the voter list and prevent duplication or inclusion of ineligible voters.After hearing all the parties in detail, the bench headed by CJI Surya Kant had reserved its decision on January 29.Read this also Sir: AP Chief Electoral Officer seeks cooperation of political parties for clean, accurate voter list