Today, On 13th August, The Supreme Court observed that the Special Intensive Revision in Bihar provides a “wide range of 11 documents for citizenship proof,” indicating support for the Election Commission of India’s move ahead of the upcoming state assembly elections.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court heard several significant cases today, including the Special Voter List Revision (SIR) issued in Bihar.
This hearing also addressed petitions related to various political figures and constitutional matters.
The bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Dr. A.M. Singhvi referred to the Lal Babu judgment he had mentioned earlier and asked the bench to consider the ECI affidavit filed in the Jharkhand matter in 2024, when a summary revision was also being conducted in Bihar.
He further highlighted that there are no foreigner tribunals available in the state, unlike in Assam where such recourse exists.
Justice Kant responded,
“Yes, they have to approach High Court etc. but yes, no civil court.”
The court observed that the ECI is expanding the number of documents by which people can prove their citizenship so that they are allowed to vote.
The judges said,
“We understand your argument on exclusionary aspect with respect to Aadhaar.. But expansion of documents.. is voter friendly. We follow your argument on Aadhaar. But it is now 11 instead of 7 items by which you can identify yourself as a citizen.”
Singhvi disagreed, stating,
“It is not simply an expansion.”
Justice Bagchi recalled,
“An argument was made by a senior counsel that see Rule 4 and see the enumeration form. Rule 4 only specifies a, b, documents, you are asking for x, y documents and can you make enumeration form (that is inconsistent with statute).. If enumeration form includes whatever is in the rule, will it be violation or a more inclusive (version of the form)?”
Justice Kant remarked,
“If someone says, ‘all eleven documents are required,’ it is anti-voter. But what if they say, give any of the eleven?”
Singhvi began his reply by stating that the exclusion of Aadhaar from the list of ID documents is discriminatory in nature.
Singhvi, replying point by point to the list of documents the ECI relies on for proving citizenship, emphasised that Aadhaar has had the highest coverage for the last 15 years, including in Bihar where it reaches around 50–60% or more, and is widely used for accessing services like water, electricity, and gas connections.
He noted that Indian passports have less than 1–2% coverage, while most other documents have between 0–3% coverage, and that this situation is not unique to Bihar. He pointed out that land-related documents are irrelevant for those without land, passports are practically inaccessible, residents’ certificates do not exist in Bihar, and Form 6 requires only self-declaration.
Criticising the ECI’s approach, he argued that the Commission has combined documents with widely varying coverage without considering their accessibility, and highlighted that the ECI itself admitted it cannot determine how many people hold at least one of the listed documents, questioning who else could be responsible for such an assessment.
The court said,
“Let us accept it like this, identify card or pension document or PPO is one of the documents.. If those covered have any other document except PPO, they can also be considered.”
Singhvi argued that there has been no real expansion of choice in the list of acceptable ID documents, as the vast majority of people in Bihar do not possess many of them. He questioned the urgency of introducing what he described as a half-baked and ad hoc scheme in July, warning that voter exclusion amounts to civil death.
Highlighting the realities of rural and flood-prone areas in Bihar, he said that preparing a list of 11 documents serves little purpose when two or three are entirely irrelevant and certain states, including Bihar, do not even have some of them. While clarifying that no one opposes revision of electoral rolls, he suggested conducting it in December and spending the entire year preparing for it, instead of implementing it right before elections.
He criticised the inclusion of 11 documents in the current exercise, alleging that three of them have no available data, others lack a known source, and many are highly irrelevant.
According to him, this seemingly impressive list is mostly a backup arrangement that replaces earlier acceptable documents such as Aadhaar, water, and electricity bills, without any overlap.
Singhvi accused the authorities of using a deliberate tactic that effectively treats existing voters as if they are not on the rolls, forcing them to prove their inclusion. He cautioned that carrying out such a reversal within two months is impossible without bypassing the principles of natural justice.
Referring to Form 6, he explained that it is intended for first-time inclusion in the electoral roll, yet the current process targets about four crore voters already registered, even though enrolment is based only on self-declaration.
When the court asked,
“This is for inclusion in electoral roll?”
Singhvi replied,
“Yes, for inclusion for first time, it is only self declaration! Objection can happen.”
He then warned,
“(Under Bihar SIR) everyone after 2003 is presumptively treated as not on electoral rolls unless they show in the negative. This is a very serious thing. Public interest would be taken care if they do a 1 year exercise, after the elections … (in earlier similar exercises) they had time, Today, they have done it in few months. Is there any sanctity? Is there one good reason why they can’t do it afterwards (after the upcoming Bihar elections)?”
This detailed exchange shows how the focus of the hearing was on whether the ECI’s sudden list of 11 documents is truly voter-friendly or risks mass exclusion, especially when the Bihar assembly elections are so close. Singhvi’s submissions highlighted practical difficulties, low coverage of most listed documents, and the dangers of conducting such a major exercise within a short period.
The bench adjourned for the afternoon break, with arguments set to resume thereafter.
In the previous hearing, the bench looked into whether the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process should aim to balance the deletion of bogus voters with the inclusion of genuine ones. It also examined the legality of changing official orders through press releases, the extent to which citizens carry the burden of proving their eligibility, and the practicality of the verification targets set for Electoral Registration Officers (EROs).
Kapil Sibal pointed out that in a small constituency, twelve individuals have been incorrectly marked as deceased, despite being alive.
Yogendra Yadav argued that the large-scale voter deletion exercise could end up excluding poor and marginalised groups, even though India already has a high level of voter registration.
He also raised doubts about the assumptions and methodology used for the process.
Case Title: In Association for Democratic Reforms & Others v. Election Commission of India, W.P.(C) No. 640/2025
Read More Reports On Bihar Voter List Row