Today, On 27th November, Kapil Sibal said it is a “dangerous proposition and unreasonable” to deploy school teachers as BLOs, arguing that such officials cannot decide citizenship and the process risks wrongful voter deletions across Bihar’s electoral rolls.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday continued hearing the petitions challenging the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) 2025 being carried out in Bihar.
The petitioners argued that the SIR exercise has led to widespread deletion of voters’ names and several irregularities in updating the electoral rolls across the state.
The matter was taken up before a Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal began by questioning the legal foundation and fairness of the verification process.
He said,
“A BLO cannot decide whether someone is of unsound mind that determination lies with the proper authorities.”
He added that under the 2003 electoral roll framework, “anyone born after 1985 wouldn’t appear on the roll.”
Sibal further pointed out,
“And anyone born after 2007 also wouldn’t be included.”
He argued that the process wrongly burdened voters with questions that have no basis in law. Referring to instances where field enumerators demanded proof of a parent’s date of birth, he stated that under the Citizenship Act, those born before 1985 are citizens and those born between 1987 and 2003 are also citizens, yet voters were being asked when their fathers were born.
The Bench clarified that it was not discarding concerns about procedural unfairness but was examining the broader constitutional implications.
Sibal asked,
“But how can a person produce documents relating to their father or mother?”
The Court responded that voters needed to provide only the illustrative documents listed earlier, but Sibal replied,
“That’s the problem many won’t have things like passports. These procedural requirements are inherently unreasonable. Even if we assume the process is fair, what will the BLO do? Declare the person a non-citizen? That would deprive them of all benefits and protections in this country.”
Calling the process unconstitutional, Sibal submitted,
“The procedure is entirely contrary to 21 (2). ECI cannot have procedure contrary to an occupied field. Then you say fill enumeration form where is it under the rules.”
He added,
“For several reasons the process is unconstitutional. Then the burden of proof is turned.”
Emphasising that only lawful residents should vote, Sibal said,
“A person illegally enter India should not have a right to vote but a person legally in India should have a right and it’s equally important.”
He warned that the current process demanded“birth certificates, passports, matriculation records,” and that “These pre independence style requirements are now being used to deny someone the right to vote.”
When the ECI’s counsel clarified that the Electoral Registration Officer, not the BLO, conducts verification, Sibal responded,
“But the BLO sends everything for verification that’s where it starts.”
After Mr. Sibal, Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing for People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and seven political parties, presented his submissions. He argued that the ECI was using Article 324 to create requirements far beyond what the law permits.
He said,
“Under Articles 324 and 327, Parliament makes the law. Everyone agrees many of these forms and questions don’t appear in the Act. They’re trying to justify this under Article 324. And nothing in parliamentary law prohibits the voter from being enrolled.”
He stressed that for decades no such documentary-heavy screening existed, stating,
“All these 75 years we have not had a requirement to say that you fill a form first and then we will decide whether to keep or remove you. This is a substantive change which can be done only by the government.”
Pointing out the absence of statutory backing, Singhvi asked,
“Where is the form given in June in ROPA? You by that form gave a rule also substantive that you fill this form with the 12 documents. Where does the parliamentary law permits that?”
He said the law envisages individualised verification, not a statewide drive.
“The Rules envisaged an individuated exercise not a mass exercise. If someone says that he is not a citizen that won’t be brushed under the carpet.”
According to him, the ECI was expanding its jurisdiction,
“Expanding the Act is not your business. Is it not going beyond 327 to supplant this exercise.”
He added that the entire SIR assumes a fictional threat, saying,
“This entire exercise assumes there’s some massive ‘influx’ of outsiders into India which is imaginary. There’s already a legal process for such questions. What’s wrong is this mass verification drive. And if you really believe you have such sweeping powers, then why not conduct an SIR across all of India?”
Calling it a constitutional overreach, he said,
“My point is about jurisdiction, this is an overreach, an illusion of authority.”
The CJI, however, questioned Singhvi’s interpretation,
“But by your reasoning, ECI will never have power of SIR…This is not routine updation…but if a special revision is being done…then perhaps the process needs to be justified.”.”
Singhvi reiterated that SIRs must be localised, not statewide, saying,
“SIRs are meant to be limited, individualised exercises for a specific constituency not statewide mass actions.”
Highlighting the practical impossibility of the requirement, Singhvi added,
“Even if the judges and advocates were asked for our mothers and fathers birth certificates then I don’t know how many of us will be able to present it. To lose my vote is a very big consequence.”
The hearing will continue on Tuesday.
Earlier, On October 9, the Court instructed the Bihar State Legal Services Authority (SLSA) to provide immediate support to individuals reportedly excluded from Bihar’s final voter rolls during the ECI’s SIR ahead of the Assembly elections.
The ECI had previously stated to the Court that the voter roll revision in Bihar adhered to due process and that no genuine voter complaints had been lodged; only objections had arisen from Delhi-based NGOs through data analysis.
Earlier, on September 15, the Court had assumed that the ECI, as a constitutional entity, was adhering to legal standards in conducting the SIR of Bihar’s electoral rolls and warned that any illegality could invalidate the process.
Additionally, On September 8, the Court clarified that Aadhaar cards issued under the Aadhaar Act, 2016, would be accepted as the 12th document for identity verification in the revised electoral rolls of Bihar prior to the Assembly elections.
Notably, on September 1, the Bench emphasized that the ECI had already established adequate safeguards and reiterated that claims and objections could be submitted even after the statutory deadline of September 1. It also cautioned against political parties attempting to elevate Aadhaar’s legal status beyond what is allowed by law, making it clear that Aadhaar cannot serve as standalone proof of citizenship.
In its defense, the ECI had characterized the exercise as lawful, necessary, and in the public interest. An interim application was filed by ADR on August 8 concerning the SIR of electoral rolls in Bihar, raising serious concerns about the exclusion of over 65 lakh names from the draft rolls. The Apex Court requested a response from the ECI.
On July 29, the Court stated it would closely monitor the ongoing Bihar electoral rolls if petitioners could identify even 15 individuals who had been removed from the rolls.
The Supreme Court reiterated on July 28 that it would not stay the SIR of electoral rolls in Bihar, with CJI Surya Kant asserting that,
“There should not be mass exclusion.. we want mass inclusion.”
Recently, ADR informed the Supreme Court that the ECI had not provided valid reasons for excluding Aadhaar, EPIC, and ration cards from the list of acceptable documents during the SIR of electoral rolls.
Previously, the ECI had argued that Aadhaar, Electoral Photo Identity Cards (EPIC), and ration cards were not valid proof of citizenship. In a detailed affidavit responding to the petitions challenging the revision drive, the Commission maintained that these documents lacked legal validity for determining citizenship and could not be relied upon to validate voter eligibility.
Case Title: Association for Democratic Reforms & Ors v. Election Commission of India & Anr.
Read More Reports On Bihar Voter List Row