The Supreme Court on Monday continued its hearing on the petitions challenging the Election Commission's (EC) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar. A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi has posted the case for Tuesday, July 29.
During the proceedings, Justice Kant clarified that the bench would not hear arguments for an interim stay on the process but would fully hear the main petitions challenging the SIR.
He mentioned that he had an administrative hearing with the Chief Justice of India to schedule the case for an early hearing.
What Happened During The Hearing?
A key point of contention was the list of acceptable documents. The petitioners pointed out that the EC had not followed the court's previous suggestion to consider Aadhaar, the Elector's Photo Identity Card (EPIC), and ration cards as valid proof.
Rakesh Dwivedi, counsel for the Election Commission, argued that using ration cards was difficult. He added that while the enumeration form asks for the EPIC number, it could not be considered conclusive proof since the revision was being conducted de novo, or from scratch.
The bench questioned this logic. Justice Joymalya Bagchi noted that if none of the 11 documents currently accepted by the EC are considered conclusive, then there is no reason to exclude Aadhaar and EPIC cards. He reasoned that if any document is later found to be untrue, that specific case can be reconsidered.
Reinforcing this, Justice Kant instructed the EC to include Aadhaar and EPIC. "You may find forgery even in the 11 documents. Cases of forgery should be considered on a case-to-case basis. In fact, inclusion in the electoral roll must be en masse," Justice Kant remarked, emphasizing a broader, more inclusive approach.
When petitioners expressed concern that the EC would finalize the roll after the August 1 draft publication, Mr. Dwivedi assured them it was only a draft. Justice Kant firmly stated that the draft status "does not take away our powers."
The high stakes of the revision were highlighted when advocate Sankaranarayanan argued that as many as 4.5 crore people may not be able to vote due to a lack of the required proofs.
In a significant observation, Justice Bagchi pointed to the Election Commission's own affidavit, which stated that electors whose names were already present in the 2003 electoral roll—the last time an intensive revision was held in Bihar—were exempt from furnishing documents to prove their eligibility.
Yesterday, The Election Commission has said that all major political parties participated in this special revision effort and deployed more than 1,50,000 booth-level agents to reach eligible voters, although these parties are now opposing the action in the Supreme Court.
In its rejoinder affidavit, the lead petitioner, the NGO 'Association for Democratic Reforms' (ADR), has argued that the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) could lead to the mass disenfranchisement of Bihar's population.
ADR claims the process gives broad and unchecked power to Electoral Registration Officers. They contend that the SIR order could "arbitrarily and without due process disenfranchise lakhs of citizens," which would disrupt the democratic process. The NGO also called the exclusion of documents like Aadhaar and ration cards "patently absurd."
Furthermore, ADR alleged that the SIR constitutes a "grave fraud on voters," with claims that Booth Level Officers are signing enumeration forms themselves, even for deceased individuals, and that citizens are receiving form completion messages without their knowledge or consent.
A look back at Outlook's coverage on all the updates. Political parties and civil rights groups have raised concerns about a pre-election voter roll update in Bihar. The Supreme Court is reviewing the Election Commission's process. It is questioning the timing and methods used while allowing the update to continue under legal oversight.
From Outlook's 'Bihar Electoral Roll Hearing: Supreme Court Asks ECI, Why Now?' by Avantika Mehta:
On Thursday, the Supreme Court questioned the Election Commission of India for conducting its special intensive revision of Bihar’s electoral rolls just months before the Assembly elections. Justice Joymalya Bagchi, sitting with Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, asked, “Why are you doing this ahead of an election in November? Can you revise the rolls but not count them in November?”
During the hearing, petitioners were represented by Senior Counsels Kapil Sibal, A. M. Singhvi, and others, who argued that the Election Commission’s order was overstepping its authority and could disenfranchise many of the most vulnerable voters in India’s 12th most populous state.
Sibal described the timeline set by the Election Commission as “impossible.” He represents Rashtriya Janata Dal Member of Parliament Manoj K. Jha and others. He noted that “nearly four crore voters”—almost half of Bihar’s population—had to submit documents like their parents’ birth certificates to the Election Commission by July 25.
Singhvi pointed out that if documents were not submitted by July 25, those voters would be removed from the rolls. He argued that the Election Commission’s revision was essentially a means to conduct a citizenship screening, which is not within its jurisdiction.
From Outlook's 'Bihar SIR To Continue; Do Your Work According To Law: SC To ECI' by Avantika Mehta
In a packed courtroom number 11, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Sudhanshu Dhulia scrutinized the Election Commission's order while affirming that the Constitutional body had the authority to conduct the revision. “You should do your job according to the law,” said the bench. Although the Supreme Court supported the Election Commission, it also questioned the timing of the revision.
“Your exercise is not the problem; it is the timing,” the bench remarked, acknowledging the need for the revision but criticizing its rushed execution so close to the election.
The court stated: “In our opinion, it would be just to include Aadhaar cards, EPIC cards, and ration cards. It is up to the Election Commission to decide whether to accept these documents.
If it does not accept them, it must provide reasons that satisfy the petitioners. Meanwhile, the petitioners are not seeking an interim stay.”
From Outlook's 'Bihar Electoral Revision Goes To Root Of Democracy: Supreme Court' by Avantika Mehta
As the hearing concluded, the court made it clear that it would not stop the revision. “The process will go on. The list of accepted documents is not exhaustive. Aadhaar cards and voter cards will be accepted. You (ECI) can proceed with your work, but do it according to the law.
The statute allows Aadhaar,” said Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi.
While issuing the order, Justice Dhulia stated, “This issue is significant and goes to the very heart of democracy, the right to vote.” He emphasized that such a process should not be hurried, as doing so could pose a risk to democracy.
“Once the electoral roll is prepared, elections could be announced with short notice… and once elections are announced, no court would address this issue.”
