Today, On 12th August, The Supreme Court ruled that the Election Commission of India (ECI) holds the authority to include or exclude citizens from the electoral rolls. This comes amid the ongoing Bihar voter list revision row ahead of elections.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court heard a group of petitions challenging the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) order of 24 June 2025.
The apex noted that the authority to include or exclude citizens and non-citizens from the electoral rolls lies with the Election Commission of India (ECI).
This order has directed a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls in Bihar, just a few months before the state’s assembly elections.
The matter came before a Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.
When petitioner’s counsel Gopal S referred to the Bihar SIR case, Justice Surya Kant deferred the matter, saying it would be taken up after the fresh matters. Subsequently, another lawyer raised an issue concerning the Bihar Panchayat elections, prompting Justice Kant to note that the court appeared to be dealing only with matters related to Bihar.
The Court did not concur with the argument that the residents of Bihar lack the majority of documents requested by the Election Commission of India (ECI) as proof during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR).
Justice Kant remarked during the proceedings,
“This is a case of trust deficiency that’s all,”
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioners, pointed out a situation where twelve living individuals were incorrectly recorded as deceased by the electoral authorities. In response, Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, speaking for the ECI, noted that the published roll was merely a draft, acknowledging that such a large-scale operation is likely to contain errors.
The Court then asked,
“We have to ask you how many are identified as dead persons… your authorities must have done some work.”
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, also representing the petitioners, argued that the SIR had already led to widespread exclusion.
However, the Court stated,
“Mass exclusion will depend on facts and figures.”
The Court then examined the documents listed as proof of identity for the SIR. Sibal contended that many of the required documents are not accessible to the people in Bihar. Justice Kant dismissed this as a broad assertion, pointing to various documents that should be available.
The Court said,
“But something will be needed to see whether they are resident or not. There are family registers, pension cards, etc… very sweeping argument to say that people do not have these documents,”
Sibal further argued that electoral authorities do not accept Aadhaar and ration cards as valid.
He added,
“Once I give Aadhaar, I prove my residence… but then the burden lies on the person saying that the document is not correct,”
The Court also reviewed the number of individuals excluded in the SIR. Sibal questioned the thoroughness of the inquiry that led to voter exclusions, noting that even those listed in the 2025 summary roll had been removed in the SIR. In response,
Justice Bagchi remarked,
“This inclusion in summary revision roll does not give you a carte blanche inclusion into the intensive revision roll.”
Justice Kant noted that the ECI was justified in stating that Aadhaar cannot serve as definitive proof of citizenship.
The Court stated,
“It has to be verified. See Section 9 of Aadhaar Act,”
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued for a presumption of citizenship and emphasized the short timeframe for the entire process occurring right before the elections. He further contended that millions of people should not be declared invalid based on assumptions.
Justice Kant remarked,
“If they do so, we will adjudicate the same… Are we going to explain everyone that if we find something suspicious can’t we include all of them in 2025 list… into the roll?”
Singhvi also asserted that the Election Commission was never intended to act as a guardian of citizenship.
However, Justice Kant responded that the ECI has the authority to include and exclude citizens and non-citizens from the rolls. Singhvi acknowledged this but added,
“Yes I can be stopped till I apply and get citizenship but if I am on the roll already…”
He pointed out that the excluded voters had participated in five or six elections.
Singhvi stated,
“What is happening here is de facto deletion. Non-inclusion is the clever word being used here,”
Advocate Prashant Bhushan raised concerns about the decision to make the draft roll non-searchable.
He stated,
“On August 4, the draft roll was searchable. After August 6, they have removed it and now names cannot be searched. That was suspicious,”
He also mentioned that Block Level Officers (BLOs) have rejected at least 10-12 percent of applications without providing any justification.
He explained,
“Among the 7.24 crore people who filled up enumeration forms, BLO have written against each of them stating recommended and not recommended. We have lists from two districts from a whistleblower… Now there are at least 10-12 percent are not recommended… and they are the ones who submitted the forms,”
At the conclusion of the hearing, psephologist Yogendra Yadav addressed the Bench regarding the issue, asserting that the SIR was inherently leading to mass exclusions.
Yadav noted,
“Vast exclusion has already begun… exclusion is much more than 65 lakhs. This is not a failure of implementation of SIR, but because of the fact that wherever you implement SIR, the result will be the same,”
He further pointed out that never before in the nation’s history have individuals been required to submit forms during a revision exercise.
He added,
“If it was done in 2003, the other side should point it out,”
Yadav also stated that the SIR had not resulted in any additions, describing it as an exercise focused on intensive deletions.
“What was special in 2003 was that SIR was done apart from the word ‘intensive’ being used. This is the first exercise in the history of the country where revision has taken place with zero additions. Zero additions.”
He characterized the entire process as “dreadful,” asserting that the SIR represented the largest exercise of disenfranchisement.
He added,
“We also have confirmation that women have been deleted more than men. 31 lakh women have been deleted… 25 lakh men have been deleted,”
Yadav also highlighted two individuals present in the courtroom who were allegedly declared dead by the electoral authorities.
He urged,
“The figure is bound to cross 1 crore. This is not an issue of revision. Please see them. These are declared as dead. They don’t appear. But they are alive… see them,”
At the end of today’s hearing, Justice Kant expressed gratitude to Yadav for his input.
The proceedings are set to continue on Wednesday.
Case Title: In Association for Democratic Reforms & Others v. Election Commission of India, W.P.(C) No. 640/2025
Read Attachment
Read More Reports On Bihar Voter List Row
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
