Today, On 10th July, Supreme Court refuses to stay the voter list update, directs ECI to consider Aadhaar, Voter ID, and ration card as valid documents; says timelines are short but process must continue.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court heard a batch of petitions that challenge the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) decision to conduct a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls in Bihar.
This exercise is taking place just a few months before the scheduled 2025 state elections, raising concerns about timing, legal basis, and possible voter disenfranchisement.
A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi is heard the matter.
Many senior lawyers appeared even before the official hearing began. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan was the first to present arguments. He explained that under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, only two kinds of electoral roll revisions are permitted: intensive and summary.
In an intensive revision, the entire voter list is re-done, while in a summary revision, only minor corrections are made. He said that what the ECI is doing now a Special Intensive Revision is not recognised in any law or rule.
The bench also noted that the term “SIR” is not mentioned in the law. Gopal Sankarnarayanan pointed out that this is the first time such a revision is being done at this scale. He said the previous intensive revision was in 2003 for around 4 crore voters, while now it is being done for about 7.9 crore people, and that too close to elections. He added that even though Aadhaar has been allowed for voter verification, the ECI is now refusing to accept it.
He also criticised the arbitrary treatment of different voters. According to him, those listed in the 2003 voter rolls do not need to show parents’ documents, but others must prove citizenship. Some exemptions were made for people in arts and sports, which Gopal said was arbitrary and discriminatory.
Justice Dhulia and Justice Bagchi raised several constitutional and legal questions.
They asked whether subsection (3) of Section 21 of the 1950 Act was being used to justify the revision. The court observed that this clause gives the ECI powers to conduct an intensive process. However, they asked why different subsections exist at all, and whether this power is being misused.
Justice Dhulia remarked that while Aadhaar is now accepted as valid proof in law, excluding it now from the process is questionable.
Urging lawyers to focus on the main issues. He also said,
“Let us not get into the bylanes and let us be on the highway,”
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal strongly criticised the exercise, saying the ECI has no authority to decide who is a citizen.
He said,
“If I am born after 1950, I am a citizen of India. The ECI cannot say otherwise without proper legal proof.”
He said denying the right to vote just because someone didn’t fill a form is unconstitutional, and the burden of proof should be on the authorities, not the voter.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi called this entire process a form of citizenship screening, which is not ECI’s job. He said that even one voter’s disenfranchisement is against democracy and the basic structure of the Constitution.
He also said that the term “SIR” does not exist in law and that all ten past elections in Bihar were based on the same electoral data, so why change now?
Justice Bagchi and Justice Dhulia said that although purging electoral rolls to remove non-citizens is not wrong, the timing just months before elections is problematic. They said that once the final electoral roll is notified, courts normally do not interfere.
Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat said that the ECI claims 98% of voters have submitted forms. But the court asked, what about those whose names are deleted? Shouldn’t each of them be given a chance to be heard?
Justice Dhulia reminded everyone that under Article 326, the key condition to vote is citizenship. But citizenship has to be determined under proper procedures, not by sudden form-filling drives or new rules.
Singhvi and Sibal both warned that excluding Aadhaar, which has been upheld by a nine-judge bench, makes no legal sense. Sibal said that migrants and poor people in Bihar will suffer the most, as they may fail to meet new document requirements.
Advocate Vrinda Grover added that this process only affects marginalised groups and could lead to people being sent to foreigners tribunals if they are removed from the rolls.
Later, Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi began arguing on behalf of the Election Commission. He said that if the ECI doesn’t have the power to revise electoral rolls, then another body would be needed, which contradicts the superintendence and control given to ECI under Article 324.
He also said that no voter will be removed without notice or a hearing, and that the ECI has a direct connection with voters, which must be maintained.
The court asked whether the ECI is complying with Rule 8 of the 1960 Rules, and whether the entire process can be completed in six months.
The hearing ended for the morning session and was scheduled to continue in the afternoon.
Hearing resumed after 2 PM.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal strongly opposed the use of Aadhaar or decisions by Booth Level Officers (BLOs) as proof of citizenship.
He said,
“They say BLO has the right to decide my citizenship. As soon as that happens then I lose my identity.. it is only the govt of India can decide who is a citizen. BLO cannot decide this. This is under Citizenship Act and ECI cannot decide this.”
In response, Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the Election Commission, explained that different documents serve different purposes.
The Court then asked,
“You are saying documents are not exhaustive.. so Aadhaar can also be used?”
Dwivedi answered,
“Aadhaar is an identity document under the statute. Not disputing. It means I am I and you is you. This document is for authentication. It is show here is my house, it is here I stay. Each document has a purpose.”
Dwivedi added that the electoral process was being modernised.
He said,
“5 to 6 crores are filled and uploaded. It is first time in history of independent India, we have created an ECI net where all the documents will be uploaded for all time to come so that everything is there for all country to see… So this exercise need not be created every time.”
The Court then gave a practical example,
“Suppose I want a caste certificate.. I show my Aadhaar card. I get a caste certificate based on that. So that is a document accepted.. but not Aadhaar. So it is one of the basic document which is considered by so many is not considered by you.”
To this, Dwivedi replied,
“I am injuncted to use Aadhaar for citizenship or domicile as per the Act.”
Justice Bagchi pointed out that Aadhaar could not be read in isolation.
He said,
“Please know that Aadhaar Act cannot be read disregarding other laws. See section 56. We have to read both the Acts together. As soon as draft roll is published, there is a possibility some names will be excluded.”
Justice Dhulia raised another important concern,
“Suppose I was a voter till Jan 2025.. is it sure that my name is there in the updated list?”
Dwivedi assured the Court,
“Yes, provided you sign the pre filled form.”
Justice Bagchi asked,
“With such a big population being subjected to intensive review.. is it possible to link this exercise with the ensuing elections .. ?”
Dwivedi responded,
“Let us complete the process.. and then take a call. We can be stopped anytime. Elections are in November. I am saying why stop me now..? You can stop me later.”
Justice Bagchi noted the Court’s general approach, saying,
“We will most loathe to interfere with the Election Commission of India.”
He added,
“We feel since Aadhar has been taken as a solid proof for inclusion in electoral rolls as per Section 23, it should be included. Your enumeration list is all related to identity .. it is matriculation certificate etc.”
Justice Dhulia observed,
“This entire exercise is (concerning) identity only.”
Dwivedi said,
“We are looking at entitlement from all aspects.”
The Court then asked, “So citizenship…” and Dwivedi confirmed, “Yes, citizenship, age.. etc.” Justice Bagchi repeated, “Yes … citizenship.”
Dwivedi informed the bench,
“1 lakh booth level officers are there.”
Justice Bagchi then questioned,
“How are you so stridently opposing Aadhaar? If it’s included, it does not stand in the way of the policy that you have.”
Justice Dhulia added,
“All are identity proofs”
Dwivedi pointed out,
“There were 3 documents in 2003 and now 11.”
But Justice Dhulia raised a practical concern,
“If you ask me these documents.. I myself cannot show you all these. Then with all your timelines … you are showing the practicality … I am telling you the issues on the ground.”
He also said,
“We don’t doubt your sincerity. But there is a perception also.”
Responding to this, the ECI said,
“We can only answer by a fruitful complete exercise.. do not stop us now.”
Justice Dhulia responded,
“Who said we are stopping you..?”
ECI clarified,
“But even including or not including this or that documents. ECI is alive to the situation.”
Dwivedi said,
“This can be listed in August to see if the forms have been filled or not.”
Justice Dhulia concluded,
“So we will note, documents are not exhaustive and Aadhaar will be taken.”
Dwivedi also stated, “Let us proceed as it is ..” and added, “It is the choice of the elector what documents they want to give and what documents not to give…”
Justice Dhulia suggested,
“They say that, let forms be filled. Then they can see if some document can be given.”
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan said,
“Ideal scenario is the January 2025 list becomes the draft list. Since all who died from 2003 has been weeded out already. They conducted summary revisions already every year and people have voted according to it.”
Senior Advocate KK Venugopal stated,
“Qualifying date for all is July 1, 2025 for all who became 18. Therefore revision is needed.”
Dwivedi added,
“That’s to fill form. October 2025 is the deadline for vote.”
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi raised a key concern,
“Such an exercise should not be linked to the ensuing elections.”
The Court replied,
“There is a democratic process which is on… we cannot stop a constitutional body.”
Singhvi countered,
“We question the process. If this is allowed to go on, it will be an irreversible scrambled egg… Today three statements are there from ECI. So many crore of forms have come etc.Mwhat is the use without documents? In August, we will say ‘now what to do we have come so far.’”
Justice Dhulia clarified,
“Mr Dwivedi himself says that they will not finalise the draft.”
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan added,
“This is a national exercise and they decide to start with Bihar!”
But the Court responded,
“We are not getting into that.”
Dwivedi then told the Court,
“We (ECI) cannot take ration card. Everything is on Aadhaar.”
Finally, the Court said,
“We will note that 11 documents are not exhaustive. They are willing to take Aadhaar and ration cards are being taken. We will note it.”
Singhvi pointed out regional issues,
“In North Bihar, Seemanchal, it is problematic. But in South Bihar, it is taken in record.”
Justice Dhulia said,
“Aadhaar is on statute. ECI is issued by you. .How can we not mention it?”
Dwivedi, on behalf of ECI, requested,
“A lot of things are happening at enrollments, so requesting do not mention Aadhaar.”
Justice Dhulia remarked,
“An important question has been raised which goes to the root of democratic set up of our country. The question is of the right to vote. Petitioners argue that the exercise has been undertaken vide June 24 order which is SIR of electoral roll is not only violative of Articles 324, 325, 14, 19 and 21 of voters and also violates of RPA and rules framed therein.”
ECI defended its action stating that the last such revision happened in 2003 and a full revision was due. As per them, this was in line with Article 326.
The Court said there were three key questions:
- Whether ECI has the power to conduct Special Intensive Revision (SIR).
- What procedure must be followed to use this power.
- Whether the current timeline is too short, as elections are in November.
The Court did not pass a final order but said the issue needed further hearing. The matter is now listed for hearing on 28 July 2025. It directed the ECI to file its counter affidavit by 21 July 2025 and the rejoinder by the petitioners before the next hearing.
In its formal order, the Court noted,
“These petitions raise a significant issue that strikes at the core of our democratic republic – the right to vote.”
It added that the petitioners were questioning the Election Commission’s 24 June 2025 order that started a Special Intensive Revision of the electoral rolls under Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
According to the petitioners, this revision violates voters’ fundamental rights under Articles 14, 21, 324, 325, and 326 of the Constitution, and also breaches the provisions of the Representation of the People Act and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
Case Title: ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ORS. V ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA , W.P.(C) No. 640/2025
Read Attachment