Today, On 14th August, In the Bihar Special Intensive Revision row, the Supreme Court asked the Election Commission, “What documents were taken in 2003 exercise?” The Court sought clarity on the basis of using the 2003 reference date for voter list revision.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday requested the Election Commission of India (ECI) to provide information about the documents used during the intensive electoral roll revision in Bihar in 2003.
A bench consisting of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi resumed hearing pleas that challenge the ECI’s decision on June 24 to conduct a special intensive revision (SIR) in the state.
The bench stated,
“We would like ECI to state what documents were taken in 2003 exercise.”
This remark followed comments by advocate Nizam Pasha, representing one of the parties, who mentioned that the court had indicated,
“If the date of January 1, 2003 (the date of the earlier SIR) goes then everything goes.”
Pasha argued that there was no evidence to justify the significance of this date, claiming that the implication was that it was the previous date for the intensive electoral roll revision.
He contended that the assertion that the EPIC (voter) cards issued then are more reliable than those from subsequent summary exercises is incorrect.
Pasha questioned why EPIC cards from summary revisions should be disregarded if the processes were the same. He declared that the 2003 date was invalid and lacked a rational basis for distinguishing between the two situations.
He stated,
“No receipt of my enumeration form is being given or any documents acknowledging the receipt is given and therefore the booth level officers have an upper hand and these lower level officers have too much discretion on whether the form has to be taken or not,”
Senior advocate Shoeb Alam, representing another petitioner, criticized the ECI notification for providing insufficient reasoning, arguing that “the process described was neither summary nor intensive but merely a construct of the notification.”
He emphasized,
“This is a process of voter registration and cannot be a process of disqualification. This is a process to welcome and not turn this into a process to unwelcome,”
The Supreme Court noted on August 13 that electoral rolls cannot remain “static” and that revisions are necessary.
The court remarked that expanding the list of acceptable identity documents from seven to eleven for Bihar’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) was “voter-friendly and not exclusionary.”
As the debate over the SIR intensified, the bench asserted that the ECI has the authority to conduct such exercises as it sees fit. The bench also rejected a petitioner’s claim that the SIR of electoral rolls in Bihar, which is approaching elections, lacked legal foundation and should be annulled.
Opposition leaders, including those from the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) and the Congress, as well as the NGO Association of Democratic Reforms (ADR), have contested the electoral roll revision initiative in Bihar.
Case Title: ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ORS. Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA, W.P.(C) No. 640/2025 (and connected cases)