Today, On 14th August, In the Bihar Voter Revision Row, Bihar MLA Akhtarul Iman told the Supreme Court that the Special Intensive Revision targets anti-incumbency, alleging, “They fear the youth’s vote,” and claiming those in power do not want young voters opposing them.
The Supreme Court on Thursday continued hearing a batch of petitions challenging the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) June 24, 2025 order that mandates a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, just a few months before the state assembly elections.
The matter was heard by a Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.
Advocate Nizamuddin Pasha, representing one of the petitioners, argued in the Supreme Court that the Election Commission of India’s 1 January 2003 cut-off date for validating voter identity cards is arbitrary and lacks any legal justification.
He maintained that the voter registration process is identical in both intensive and summary revision exercises, making it unreasonable to consider EPIC cards from one period as more reliable than those from another.
He further highlighted procedural lapses, pointing out that applicants are not provided with any receipt for the forms or documents submitted, which allows booth level officers to exercise undue control over the process.
Justice Bagchi pointed out,
“But as per rules they should.”
Advocate Nizamuddin Pasha informed the Supreme Court that he had already filed an affidavit stating that applicants were not given receipts, and alleged that booth level officers were exercising discretion on whether to accept forms, leaving the system heavily dependent on the judgment of the lowest level officials.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi then asked the Election Commission of India to clarify what documents were taken during the 2003 voter registration exercise, to which Pasha agreed and requested that the details be placed on record.
Justice Bagchi confirmed,
“Yes.”
Bihar MLA Akhtarul Iman, who represents the Amour constituency and belongs to the AIMIM, has told the Supreme Court that the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the voter list is aimed at targeting anti-incumbency.
Iman is also one of the litigants challenging the SIR process. He was represented in court by Advocate Nizam Pasha.
Speaking before the Bench, Akhtarul Iman alleged,
“SIR targets anti-incumbency.”
He claimed that those currently in power are seeking to prevent young voters from exercising their right to vote against them.
According to him,
“The incumbents in power would not want youths to vote against them.”
Senior Advocate Shoeb Alam then made his submissions, focusing on the legal requirement of recording reasons for such decisions.
He said,
“I am on the right under section 21. See the operative part.. ‘reasons to be recorded.’ There is insufficiency of reasons in the impugned notification. The process invented is neither summary nor intensive and a creature of the impugned notification. The statutory limitations for the exercise of powers can only be done when reasons are recorded in writing,”
Alam stressed that voter registration should be an inclusive process.
He added,
“This is a process of voter registration and cannot be a process of disqualification. This is a process to welcome, not to turn into a process to unwelcome,”
Advocate Rashmi Singh also attacked the ECI order, calling it arbitrary and rushed.
She said,
“ECI order is arbitrary and suffers from non-application of mind. First is haste shown.. see the timeline to complete the process in a state like Bihar. Even for one crore people to upload documents in a state that is not so advanced in digital literacy. Floods are worse in September and October, and that is when the process is being carried out,”
She noted that deletions without notice go against ECI’s own rules.
Singh pointed out,
“When there is suo motu deletion without notice this is also against their own manual,”
She urged the Court to grant interim relief.
Singh requested,
“Interim prayer is to delink this hasty process from these elections and let Aadhaar be included, and let window for accepting objections be extended,”
She also raised concerns about the heavy workload placed on Booth Level Officers (BLOs).
She argued,
“BLOs are burdened with unrealistic targets told to collect 100 forms a day when even 40 is hard to achieve. As per their own caste survey only 0.37% of the SC community has computer access, yet such requirements are imposed without adequate infrastructure. ECI must give constituency wise reasons meeting the test of proportionality but has failed,”
Singh said the January summary revision was wasted and questioned why the 2003 cut-off was still being used despite multiple revisions since then. She pointed to the 2023 Bihar caste survey data,
“The 2023 Bihar caste survey shows only 1.15% overall, and 0.37% of SCs have internet enabled computers. The ECI is accountable and must explain, especially amid the exclusion of women, particularly married women.”
Advocate Vrinda Grover also addressed the Court, criticising the ECI’s approach.
She called,
“The hostility of EC baffling”
and requested that “Form 6” be considered for interim relief.
As the petitioners concluded their arguments, Justice Kant remarked,
“Lets now hear the other side also. We hope as you have shown such patience while hearing them they will also extend the same uninterrupted time to you.”
The hearing will continue post-lunch.
During yesterday’s hearing over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process in Bihar, a case that has drawn national attention ahead of the upcoming state assembly elections.
The hearing witnessed a clash of arguments over the powers of the Election Commission of India (ECI) and the rights of citizens to participate in free and fair elections.
The bench observed that the SIR process in Bihar allows a “wide range of 11 documents for citizenship proof,” which indicated support for the Election Commission’s move to conduct the exercise.
The court noted that this provision aimed to ensure that genuine voters are included while maintaining electoral integrity.
During the proceedings, Justice Surya Kant, who is the future Chief Justice of India, addressed Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi by saying,
“Don’t portray Bihar negatively. The state leads in IAS, IPS, and IFS officers, showing the strength of its youth.”
This remark came in response to concerns raised about the state’s voter list management.
The bench also underlined the constitutional importance of the issue, observing that,
“The Bihar SIR row is a battle between constitutional entitlement under Article 324 and constitutional right under Article 326.”
This highlighted the central question of how the Election Commission’s constitutional powers intersect with the citizens’ fundamental right to vote in free and fair elections.
Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing in the matter, alleged that the ECI had removed the search provision from voter rolls immediately after a press conference held by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi. He said that this action, coming soon after Rahul Gandhi had spoken about alleged vote theft and duplicate voters, raised serious concerns about electoral transparency and fairness.
Case Title: ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ORS. Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA, W.P.(C) No. 640/2025 (and connected cases)