Today, On 10th July, Supreme Court hears pleas challenging Bihar’s voter list revision, calling the matter crucial to the “Right to Vote” and stating it “goes to the root of democracy” amid concerns over EC’s Special Intensive Revision.
The Supreme Court began hearing a group of petitions challenging the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) decision to carry out a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls in Bihar, just months ahead of the 2025 state elections.
A large number of senior lawyers appeared in the matter even before the hearing officially started.
A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi heard the matters.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan was the first to speak. He said,
“This is the first item.”
Justice Sanjay Karol responded by saying,
“I was seeing the copy of item 40.1.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared virtually, along with senior advocates K.K. Venugopal, Rakesh Dwivedi, and Maninder Singh who were representing the Election Commission.
Gopal Sankarnarayanan explained,
“This is revision of electoral rolls… the only relevant provision is the Representation of Peoples Act 1950. What is permitted under Act and Rules is that regular revision of rolls can happen. One is intensive revision and one is summary revision. Intensive is entire roll is effaced and entire exercise is new where all 7.9 crores have to go through SIR. In summary, small amendments are made to the roll. What happened here is to order a special intensive revision.”
Also Read: Bihar Legislative Council || Supreme Court Prohibits Bypoll Results Announcement
The Supreme Court bench pointed out that the term “SIR” does not exist in law.
The court said,
“But this term SIR is not in.”
Gopal replied,
“Yes, not in Act and Rules. First time in the history. They say first one is in 2003 where it was 4 crore people… now it’s about 7.9 crore people and about 10 elections done since then. Now with polls months away, they are carrying out this where draft has to be out in 30 days. Despite amendments made to Act where Aadhaar is allowed for verification, they say now Aadhaar will not be considered.”
He also highlighted the unfair burden placed on new voters, saying,
“They say if you are in 2003 rolls, you can avoid parents’ documents. Else others will have to prove citizenship. They have made exemptions for the arts, sports people, and that is completely arbitrary and discriminatory.”
Justice Dhulia noted,
“In 2 petitions, 2 different notifications have been attached.”
To this, Gopal responded,
“There are 4 documents of June 24. Let us go through one by one.“
Justice Dhulia also commented on the constitutional justification behind the exercise, saying,
“What they are doing is mandate under the Constitution. You cannot say that they are doing something which is not a mandate under the Constitution you see. They have fixed a date of 2003 since an intensive exercise has been conducted. They have data for that. Why should they scratch their head again? ECI has a logic behind this.”
But Gopal firmly opposed this reasoning, saying,
“This process has no basis under the law. It is arbitrary and discriminatory. The fact that they have put artificial line in 2003 is something which the law does not allow. Revision procedure is laid down in 1950 Act.”
The bench remarked that,
“This intensive revision and summary revision is in rules. Tell us when is the commission expected to carry this out when? Periodically or when … You are not challenging the powers of ECI but the manner in which it is being conducted.”
Justice Joymalya Bagchi asked,
“Do you think subsection 3 of section 21 is being involved?”
Gopal replied, “They are relying on it.”
The court then said,
“We think subsection 3 is non obstante clause entrusted on the ECI to carry out the intensive process. So the power is traceable to subsection 3.”
Gopal added,
“Subsection 1 is omnibus. Subsection 2 is summary and 3 is intensive.”
The bench asked,
“So why did legislature employ two separate provisions… Subsection 1 prescribed procedure as per rules and subsection 3 prescribed a definite way. Why is that so?”
Justice Bagchi summed up Gopal’s key concern by stating,
“The contention that Aadhaar has been considered a reliable ID under the principle act and thus excluding this now is unlawful. This is what you are arguing.”
Gopal then said,
“If 7.5 crore voters are there now how can they be removed en masse.”
He also clarified,
“In Bihar the final electoral roll was in existence in June itself.”
Justice Dhulia observed,
“ECI is including the judges, journalists, arts people in this since they are already known. Let us not stretch this. Let us not get into the bylanes and let us be on the highway.”
Justice Bagchi further summarised,
“Your main contention is the exclusion of Aadhaar from the batch of documents permitted.”
Justice Dhulia added,
“For citizenship the process is about strict appreciation of evidence. There has to be quasi judicial authority.”
Senior Advocate Maninder Singh commented, “But it needs that…”
Justice Dhulia asked,
“Then isn’t this too late now?”
To this, Rakesh Dwivedi remarked, “Let the cake bake first.”
The court responded humorously,
“One cake was made in January itself (preparation of electoral rolls).”
Justice Bagchi stated,
“There is nothing wrong in having this intensive process so that non citizen don’t remain on rolls but it should be de hors this election which is coming up.”
Justice Dhulia remarked,
“Once electoral roll is finalised and notified and election is after that.. no court will touch that.”
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal argued from the constitutional point of view, saying,
“Please see the Constitution of India. Now Articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution of India. Now see the Citizenship Act. Now see citizenship by birth. If I am born on 1950 no one can take it away… now see Section 15 of RPA.”
He continued,
“ECI has no power in this… who are they to say we are citizens or not. They are people who are not registered as citizens and there are who are registered and can be deleted only in terms of Section 3. So the entire exercise is shocking. They say if you don’t fill a form you cannot vote. How can this be allowed? The burden is on them and not me. They have to have some material in their possession to say that I am not a citizen! Not on me.”
The court asked,
“Is it not their mandate to see that qualified votes and unqualified does not vote?”
Justice Dhulia added,
“So you are saying large number of voters will be disenfranchised.”
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi said, “This is an exercise in citizenship. Disenfranchisement of one voter impacts democracy and the basic structure. So we are saying all 10 elections till now was based on wrong electoral data.”
Justice Bagchi commented, “We have to see whether statutory provision giving wide berth powers give room for this elbow joint act?”
Singhvi added, “The process cannot lead to disenfranchisement… the words are final electoral roll. There was no whisper of SIR.” Justice Dhulia noted, “One rule says verbal hearing is there in summary process also. They may have intensive process also.”
Singhvi criticised the ECI’s move, saying, “It is all en masse where all are put in the suspended Trishanku state… this is all a fudge.”
Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat added, “They say 98 percent forms have been given.”
The court asked, “If any deletion is made then it is subject to 21B… let us presume 7 crore name in draft roll and deleted 3 crore voters. You argue that they all have to be heard before the final list is prepared. We will ask the ECI… about this. Do you think written objection is needed for 21A?”
Justice Dhulia reminded,
“Once, under Article 326 also, citizenship is the main criteria which makes you a voter.”
Singhvi elaborated,
“Citizenship is totally under different procedure. Someone has to come and show that they are seeking it under a different process and produce documents… Then comes Aadhaar which was taken as a valid one… upheld by nine judges and the entire country is going mad after Aadhaar and then a constitutional body says Aadhaar will not be taken.”
He concluded,
“This is absolutely an exercise to carry out citizenship screening.”
Kapil Sibal added,
“If I am born after 1950 I am citizen of India. If someone is challenging that then it has to be proven. Officer has to go to their home and verify. 1 crore people are migrants in Bihar. This exercise is completely beyond the remit of ECI.”
Advocate Vrinda Grover warned,
“This screening is only the marginalized. Only poor and marginalized will be impacted. Once I am not on the rolls you will move to send me to foreigners tribunals. This is complete exclusionary.”
Then Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi began arguments for the ECI.
Justice Dhulia laid out the key points before the court:
- There is no question that the issue before the court goes to root of democracy and about right to vote.
- It is not just powers of ECI but the process adopted.
- The next is the timing.
Here are top quotes by the Supreme Court,
- “There are three things that you have to answer. There is no question that this issue is an important issue and goes through the very root of democracy. The right to vote. They are challenging not only the powers of the election commission to do it, challenging the procedure and the timing.”
- “Why connecting SIR in Bihar to assembly elections in November? Why can’t it be irrespective of elections?”
- “But there is a practicality involved. They fixed the date because it was the first time after computerisation. So there is a logic. You can demolish it but you cannot say that there is no logic.”
- “Your decision let us say to disenfranchise the person who is already there on the electoral roll of 2025 would compel this individual to appeal against decision and go through this entire rigmarole and thereby be denied of his right to vote in the ensuing election. There is nothing wrong in you purging electoral rolls through an intensive exercise in order to see that non-citizens don’t remain on the role. But if you decide only a couple of months before a proposed election.”
- “Don’t stretch it so far. There is a practical element to all this. They are doing this so that these people are already verified. Where does Article 14 come here? Be on the Highway. Main, main point batao.”
Dwivedi replied,
“If ECI does not have the power to prepare and update the electoral roll then a different body has to be found. Especially notwithstanding Article 324.”
He added,
“Superintendence, direction and control over the electoral roll is the first thing. You also cannot be a voter in two places.”
The court agreed partially, saying,
“Yes, Superintendence etc. is there… but what they are arguing is that it is not revision or, summary… but something which is special intensive etc.”
Dwivedi explained,
“ECI has the direct relation with the voters. If voters are not there then we are non-existent. Next we cannot discriminate on the basis of religion, caste etc. every person who is citizen and not less than 18 and not barred by law… and not disqualified… shall be entitled to be registered as a voter.”
He then said,
“Are the voters here?? Only some people who write articles have come here. ADR was recently deprecated. I have serious objection to this.”
Justice Dhulia asked, “Are you serious about this?”
Dwivedi answered, “I am.”
Justice Dhulia responded, “Okay.”
Justice Bagchi added,
“This cannot be a serious objection. This can’t be your best point… please move ahead.”
He then asked,
“My question is why to link this process to an incoming election at all?”
Dwivedi assured,
“No one will be deleted without notice or being heard.”
Justice Bagchi also asked,
“Are you following the Rule 8 of the 1960 rules… are you going to finish in 6 months?”
The hearing ended for the morning session, with the matter set to resume post 2 PM.
The Election Commission of India (ECI), On June 24, announced the initiation of a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls in Bihar, gearing up for the upcoming state assembly elections.
This initiative aims to update the electoral rolls to ensure that all eligible voters are included while removing ineligible ones.
The ECI emphasized its commitment to strictly following the constitutional guidelines regarding voter eligibility and disqualification as outlined in Article 326 of the Constitution of India and Section 16 of the Representation of People Act, 1950 (RPA).
Article 326 specifies that any individual aged 18 or older is entitled to vote, while Section 16 details the disqualifications, which include non-citizenship, being mentally unsound, or being barred from voting under laws related to corrupt practices and other electoral offenses.
The SIR is conducted under the authority granted by Article 324 and Section 21 of the RPA. Article 324 endows the ECI with overarching control and direction over elections in India, while Section 21 empowers it to prepare and update electoral rolls.
The qualifying date for this revision was set for July 1, 2025, meaning anyone who turns 18 on or before this date will be eligible to vote.
This marks the first comprehensive revision of the Bihar electoral rolls since 2003, aimed at preserving “the integrity of the Electoral Roll,” which is essential for conducting free and fair elections. The primary objectives of the SIR are:
- To ensure every eligible citizen is registered and no one is left out.
- To remove any ineligible voters from the rolls.
- To eliminate names of deceased, shifted, or absentee voters.
The ECI has justified the need for this intensified revision due to factors like rapid urbanization, frequent population shifts, the arrival of new eligible young voters, underreported deaths, and the presence of names of illegal immigrants.
The ECI has assigned Booth Level Officers (BLOs) to carry out door-to-door verification. This process involves BLOs conducting surveys to identify eligible and ineligible voters. Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) will print pre-filled Enumeration Forms for current voters, which BLOs will distribute and collect along with supporting documents during their visits.
These forms will also be available for download on the ECI website (or ECINET). Additionally, voters can fill out and upload these forms online with the necessary documentation.
To promote transparency while safeguarding voter privacy, the notification states that the documents used for eligibility verification will be uploaded to ECINET and will only be accessible to authorized election officials. The ECI has encouraged active participation from all political parties and has requested them to appoint Booth Level Agents (BLAs) for each polling booth, allowing for discrepancies to be addressed early in the process, thus reducing claims, objections, and appeals. Claims and objections can be submitted by any voter or political party and will be reviewed by Assistant Electoral Registration Officers (AEROs).
Following this, the ERO will publish the final electoral roll after addressing all claims and objections, which will be shared with recognized political parties and made available on the ECI and Chief Electoral Officer’s websites.
The draft electoral rolls are set to be published on August 1, 2025.
Legal Challenges
In early July, the Association for Democratic Reforms, along with Swaraj Party member and activist Yogendra Yadav, filed a petition with the Supreme Court under Article 32, contesting the ECI’s announcement. They argue that the SIR is arbitrary and violates the universal right to adult suffrage.
The petitioners highlight that the identification process shifts the onus onto individual citizens, requiring them to submit fresh applications and proof of citizenship by July 25, 2025. They contend that the requirements exclude vital documents like Aadhaar and ration cards, making proof of parental identity mandatory. Given Bihar’s significant levels of poverty and migration, such stipulations could disenfranchise millions.
The petition also criticizes the limited timeframe and lack of prior consultation, asserting that the initiative undermines democracy, equality, and the right to vote, especially for vulnerable groups.
Additionally, they note that in order for the SIR to be completed on schedule, the ECI must train 100,000 BLOs, of which 20,000 are yet to be appointed.
The ADR stated in its petition,
“All within the month (of which a week has passed) when Bihar is in the midst of the monsoon and floods! So, unless the ECI has a magic wand, we should expect a withdrawal of this order, drastic changes in the list of documents allowed (as announced on June 30) or a postponement of the Bihar assembly elections,”
They are seeking an immediate stay to the SIR.
Meanwhile, the ECI has issued notices about the smooth implementation of the SIR in the state on July 4 and 5. On July 6, the ECI released a statement indicating that the initial phase of the SIR has been completed, clarifying that there will be no changes to the SIR process as per the notification issued on June 24.
It also included the message, “No changes made in SIR as being rumoured by some.”
On July 7, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the petitions challenging the SIR, with the matter scheduled for discussion on July 10, Today.
Case Title: ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ORS. V ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA , W.P.(C) No. 640/2025
Read Attachment