Today, On 15th September, Bihar SIR row, Supreme Court observed that the Election Commission of India knows the law and can distinguish between Indian citizens and foreign infiltrators, as debates continued over Aadhaar’s validity, voter roll transparency, and nationwide scrutiny of rolls.
New Delhi: Today, A Bench led by Justice Kant and Justice Bagchi continued hearing petitions raising serious concerns about the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) ongoing revision of voter rolls, transparency issues, and use of Aadhaar for verification.
Justice Kant first asked Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the Election Commission, about the progress.
He said,
“what’s the current status? Should we not wait for actual assessment as to how many individuals left out?”
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan pointed out that the Commission was moving forward with other states even though major legal questions were still pending.
He requested the court to fix a hearing date, saying,
“The ECI is moving ahead with the other states. Since we had to a large degree addressed on the legal aspect just give us a date today. If it is found that this is a perversion of a constitutional scheme we may press that this may not continue. There is no question of proceeding with other states and establishing fait accompli. An actual date may be given.”
Advocate Vrinda Grover highlighted that the law required electoral rolls to be frozen by the last date of nomination and said,
“There is a timeline. The law says the last date for nomination is when the electoral role should be frozen. For this election why should I be denied a right to vote because of an illegal methodology.”
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi also urged an early hearing,
“Your lordships may take this at the earliest. They have now announced across the country.”
Justice Kant responded that the court’s decision would apply across states,
“Wherever they are proposing meanwhile we will deliver the judgement that will obviously apply.”
Advocate Prashant Bhushan strongly criticised the lack of transparency, saying,
“what is happening is there is gross violation of the rules and their own manual. There is virtually no transparency. Their rules require that within 1 day objections to be uploaded on their website. So that people can see who has applied for deletion etc. this is not being followed. They have uploaded only 30% of the objections and requests for additions etc.”
Justice Kant replied,
“The problem is when we ask them to respond they’ll come up with a different story. We have to hear both stories.”
Bhushan maintained that the Commission must follow its own guidelines,
“This is from their own data. They have to comply with their own rules, their own manual.”
The court then decided to list the matter on 7 October.
Justice Kant said,
“We’ll take up on 7th October. Meanwhile each of you prepare a brief note of arguments.”
Bhushan warned about the lack of time before the elections, stressing,
“If it is set aside, the manner in which they have prepared these rolls, then what happens? Elections are to be announced in the middle of October. There will be no time. In the meantime they may be directed to follow the rules. They are complying with the Court’s orders. They are not complying with any other rules.”
He further requested minimum transparency,
“Let there be minimum transparency. Let them follow their own rules.”
Justice Kant instructed,
“Give us a compilation of these violations. You consolidate and give a copy.”
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan informed the court that a daily bulletin previously published by the ECI had now been stopped.
Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi replied,
“We are giving a report to the political parties. Now they want daily. We have other work.”
Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay pressed for a nationwide scrutiny, arguing that Aadhaar cannot be treated at par with other documents.
He said,
“I am seeking nationwide SIR. Aadhaar is simply proof of identity. It is not proof of citizenship, not proof of age, not proof of residence etc. Aadhaar cannot be equated with the 12 documents.”
Justice Bagchi asked,
“So PAN record is more relevant than Aadhar?”
Justice Kant reminded that Aadhaar had only been accepted temporarily,
“We will hear you. As an interim arrangement, we have said Aadhaar.”
Upadhyay, however, warned of risks,
“Keeping Aadhar with the 11 other documents is completely contrary to law. Aadhar is issued to foreigners also. Please modify the order dated 8th September. Otherwise it will be disastrous.”
Justice Bagchi remarked,
“Whether disastrous or not will be decided by the ECI.”
Justice Kant clarified,
“we are keeping this issue open. We are not rejecting or accepting.”
Upadhyay then cautioned,
“In Bihar, there are lakhs of Rohingyas and Bangladeshis. ECI should ensure no foreigner should get voting right.”
The matter is now scheduled for further hearing on 7 October, with the Supreme Court asking all parties to file their brief notes and a consolidated compilation of alleged violations.
Earlier, On August 6, the Court learned that 6.5 million names were removed from the draft electoral roll published on August 1. The ECI assured the Court that no names would be removed without prior notice, an opportunity for a hearing, and a reasoned order from the appropriate authority.
The Election Commission of India (ECI), On 24 June 2025, started a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls in Bihar before the Assembly elections. Under this process, voters were asked to provide updated documents, but many citizens did not have them.
Opposition parties and several NGOs criticised this move, saying it could deprive a large number of genuine voters of their right to vote. They approached the Supreme Court (SC), calling the ECI’s action arbitrary and against the Constitution.
The Commission, On 1 August 2025, released the draft electoral roll, which showed a total of 7.24 crore registered voters. At the same time, around 65 lakh names were removed from the list.
Petitioners, including the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), requested the Supreme Court to order the ECI to make public the full list of voters whose names were dropped, along with the reasons for each deletion. They said that without such transparency, many citizens might lose their right to vote without being given a fair chance to object.
Case Title: ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ORS. Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA, W.P.(C) No. 640/2025 (and connected cases)
Read Attachment
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Bihar SIR Row
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
