Today, On 13th August, The Supreme Court observed that the Bihar SIR dispute is “a battle between constitutional entitlement under Article 324 and constitutional right under Article 326,” highlighting the clash between election commission powers and citizens’ right to vote in free and fair elections.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court heard several significant cases today, including the Special Voter List Revision (SIR) issued in Bihar.
This hearing also addressed petitions related to various political figures and constitutional matters.
The bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Dr. A.M. Singhvi referred to the Lal Babu judgment he had mentioned earlier and asked the bench to consider the ECI affidavit filed in the Jharkhand matter in 2024, when a summary revision was also being conducted in Bihar.
He further highlighted that there are no foreigner tribunals available in the state, unlike in Assam where such recourse exists.
Justice Kant responded,
“Yes, they have to approach High Court etc. but yes, no civil court.”
The court observed that the ECI is expanding the number of documents by which people can prove their citizenship so that they are allowed to vote.
The judges said,
“We understand your argument on exclusionary aspect with respect to Aadhaar.. But expansion of documents.. is voter friendly. We follow your argument on Aadhaar. But it is now 11 instead of 7 items by which you can identify yourself as a citizen.”
Singhvi disagreed, stating,
“It is not simply an expansion.”
Justice Bagchi recalled,
“An argument was made by a senior counsel that see Rule 4 and see the enumeration form. Rule 4 only specifies a, b, documents, you are asking for x, y documents and can you make enumeration form (that is inconsistent with statute).. If enumeration form includes whatever is in the rule, will it be violation or a more inclusive (version of the form)?”
Justice Kant remarked,
“If someone says, ‘all eleven documents are required,’ it is anti-voter. But what if they say, give any of the eleven?”
Singhvi began his reply by stating that the exclusion of Aadhaar from the list of ID documents is discriminatory in nature.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi strongly criticised the Election Commission of India (ECI) for removing 65 lakh names from the electoral rolls under what he described as the term “non-inclusion”. He told the Supreme Court that these voters were declared removed without any proper process, rules, or adjudication, and were categorised as either deceased, permanently shifted or absent, or already registered elsewhere.
According to him, this was done through a procedure not mentioned in the rules, with only a press note asking people to submit enumeration forms.
Singhvi recalled that similar actions had taken place in 2004, but back then, states like Arunachal Pradesh and Maharashtra were exempted because elections were near. He said this was an unusual case where the ECI was not following its own rules, stressing that such an important exercise should not be rushed.
After his submissions, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan addressed the court, saying that West Bengal had also been served a notice for Special Intensive Revision (SIR) without the State government being consulted, even though elections are scheduled for next year.
Representing the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), he argued that the enumeration form had no basis in the Constitution and that removing a citizen’s voting entitlement would require amending the Representation of the People Act.
He also expressed concern that India, despite being the world’s largest democracy, could witness such casual removal of 65 lakh voters without a proper legal framework, only through sending forms and asking for documents.
Justice Bagchi said,
“This is the first time exercise… They have to undo all electoral rolls… but they have not done that… they have set a milestone of 2003… so they also presuppose the existence of an electoral roll so a counter could be why 2003 and not the January 2025 one.”
Sankaranarayanan responded,
“Nothing from here allows you to put some marker… and here, without conducting individual inquiries… does the law allow you to embark on such an exercise.”
He added,
“It’s historic because exercise such as this has never been done.”
Justice Kant commented,
“Then subsection becomes redundant.”
Justice Bagchi pointed out,
“So you say take your argument to an absurdum… take the constituencies into account… see you admit that Subsection 3 has an overriding effect over Subsection 2.”
Sankaranarayanan insisted,
“Strong procedures are laid down to show this is how revisions would be carried out…”
Justice Bagchi said,
“Primary legislation gives a slight elbow space for some variations, like during man-made disasters, etc. Some variation can be there, but whether the variation is just or not will be tested against Rule 4(2). You harp on Article 326, and ECI will harp on Article 325. It is a fight between constitutional right vs constitutional entitlement.”
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan argued in the Supreme Court that under constitutional principles, every eligible citizen has the right to be included in the electoral rolls unless disqualified, and that this right cannot be taken away without due process.
He criticised the Election Commission of India (ECI) for changing its stance on acceptable documents for voter verification despite earlier court observations, and for continuing with the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise in West Bengal without proper safeguards. He sought an immediate stay on the process, warning that arbitrary cut-off dates could unfairly remove voters.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan also opposed the mass removal of voters, citing earlier Supreme Court rulings that required authorities to give specific reasons, issue proper notices, and accept all relevant evidence before deleting any name from the rolls. He alleged that in many cases, enumeration forms were filled by booth level officers themselves, even on behalf of deceased persons, leading to serious errors in the records.
He further claimed that the draft electoral rolls, which were previously searchable online, were suddenly removed from public access, preventing transparency and making it impossible for voters to check their details.
Justice Kant responded,
“We have no knowledge of press conference.”
Bhushan replied,
“We know.”
Justice Bagchi observed,
“The minimum statutory requirement is form 5… Yes website publication was good but this is the minimum statutory requirement…”
Advocate Prashant Bhushan told the Supreme Court that the actions of the Election Commission of India (ECI) in removing 65 lakh voters from the electoral rolls appeared to be driven by bad faith, pointing to the lack of public disclosure of these deletions. He said the minimum safeguard required was to publish the list of all deleted names, provide a searchable database of the full seven crore voters, and disclose details of those recommended or not recommended for inclusion, along with reasons for deletion.
Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat also opposed the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR), clarifying that while regular and intensive revisions were acceptable, this unprecedented process could not be justified. He argued that the draft electoral roll had already excluded 65 lakh voters without following the standard procedure, where the existing roll should first be treated as the draft roll before any additions or deletions are made.
According to him, starting with such a large number already removed amounted to an illegal disenfranchisement of citizens.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat maintained that even if voters were deceased, their names could only be removed through the proper procedure under the election rules, and that any ongoing revision should first restore the names already deleted before proceeding further.
Another counsel informed the bench about the human impact of the large-scale deletions, citing a recent incident in which three women in West Bengal allegedly attempted self-harm in front of the Calcutta High Court over the issue.
The bench clarified that it would focus on the broad legal principles, which would apply to both Bihar and West Bengal. Senior Advocate Prashanto Chandra Sen criticised the current method of Special Intensive Revision, saying that instead of door-to-door verification by officials, the process now relied heavily on enumeration forms, raising concerns about fairness, especially in areas with tight timelines and unequal volunteer support between political parties.
He also highlighted gaps in accountability for booth level officers and volunteers, challenges in verifying the residence of homeless persons, and irregular numbering in illegal colonies, warning that these factors could undermine the integrity of the electoral roll revision.
During the hearing, Advocate Prashant Bhushan asked,
“Why should a voter have to go to the booth level officer of a political party to check whether their name is there or not?”
Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi responded that only the final electoral roll is published online, not the draft list.
Bhushan countered,
“It was available earlier but they removed it a day after Rahul Gandhi held a press conference.”
Justice Kant said,
“We do not know about any press conference.”
Bhushan added,
“He held a press conference showing duplicate voters listed in the roll.”
Dwivedi replied,
“Unfortunately I can’t respond to that.”
The court said,
“These are challenges, any administration will face. These are practical challenges. Someone will have to find a way out. This is not as if there is no solution.”
Senior Advocate Prashanto Chandra Sen told the Supreme Court that while there was no objection to conducting an intensive revision of the electoral rolls, the current exercise could not be considered reasonable given the short timelines and procedural shortcomings.
He argued that the rushed approach risked compromising fairness and accuracy in the voter verification process.
At the end of the hearing, Justice Kant asked the other counsel for the petitioners how much time they needed and kept half an hour time for them tomorrow.
He said,
“We will try to start tomorrow by 11 or 11:15.”
In the previous hearing, the bench looked into whether the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process should aim to balance the deletion of bogus voters with the inclusion of genuine ones. It also examined the legality of changing official orders through press releases, the extent to which citizens carry the burden of proving their eligibility, and the practicality of the verification targets set for Electoral Registration Officers (EROs).
Kapil Sibal pointed out that in a small constituency, twelve individuals have been incorrectly marked as deceased, despite being alive.
Yogendra Yadav argued that the large-scale voter deletion exercise could end up excluding poor and marginalised groups, even though India already has a high level of voter registration.
He also raised doubts about the assumptions and methodology used for the process.
Case Title: In Association for Democratic Reforms & Others v. Election Commission of India, W.P.(C) No. 640/2025
Read More Reports On Bihar Voter List Row