The Supreme Court resumed hearing ADR’s challenge to Bihar’s Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, raising concerns over transparency, Aadhaar use, and voter deletions. Senior advocates warned that shifting the burden of proving citizenship to voters threatens the constitutional right to vote.
The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday resumed hearing a batch of petitions led by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar. The case raises serious concerns about procedural fairness, transparency, and the protection of voters’ rights.
The matter is being heard by a Bench comprising the Chief Justice of India and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. During the hearing, senior counsel appearing for the petitioners made detailed submissions on constitutional provisions governing elections and citizenship.
Counsel began by referring to Article 324 of the Constitution and submitted,
“Article 324 has already been read, My Lords. What it makes clear is that only citizens of India are entitled to be part of the electoral process.”
He then took the Court through the Representation of the People Act, highlighting Sections 16 and 19, stating that Section 16 lays down disqualifications including non-citizenship, unsoundness of mind, and disqualification under law. He submitted that not all such grounds require adjudication by external authorities.
Further explaining citizenship by birth, counsel stated,
“There are three categories of persons, my lord, by birth. Firstly, from between 1950 to 87, born in India is sufficient. Between 87 to 2004, born in India plus either of the parents is citizen. And after 2004, my lord, born in India, both parents, or if one parent is a citizen, the other must not be an illegal migrant.”
He further submitted,
“that since 3.12.2004, even if one of the parents of a citizen of a person who is born in India is an illegal migrant, he or she is not entitled to citizenship by birth. The provisions regarding denial of citizenship by birth to a person either whose parent is an illegal migrant has been made having regard to the large number of such illegal migrants in the country.”
Emphasising the constitutional duty of the Election Commission, counsel argued,
“It is therefore the constitutional legal duty of the Election Commission of India to ensure that citizens alone are in the electoral vote since franchisee is the most fundamental thing in democracy, as stated by Dr. Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly.”
Counsel then submitted three key points before the Court:
“Duty of the Election Commission under Article 355:”
“Legislative and Judicial Recognition of Illegal Migration:”
“Limitations on Using Aadhaar for Citizenship Verification”
He further explained that Aadhaar can be required for identification purposes, stating that election officers may require Aadhaar to authenticate entries, prevent duplication, and identify multiple registrations.
At this stage, Justice Bagchi observed,
“This court never said that include Aadhaar to prove citizenship. It said clarify Aadhaar is a acknowledged document of identity as per the statutory scheme of the representation of people And if that is so, then the enumeration would ordinarily take into consideration the scheme of the Act and include Aadhaar.”
Justice Bagchi further clarified,
“In fact, what was argued is something different. That look at the 11 documents. Can land record be proof of citizenship? But that document is there. Why? So these 11 documents need not always be with clear relation to citizenship, but they may be of various species, which would ordinarily relate to what the purpose which the Election Commission seeks to serve in exercising its plenary powers that has been argued under Article 324, articulated through the statutory scheme under 21 subsection 3.”
He also noted,
“So your argument actually is going cross purposes with the Election Commission’s view that Aadhaar is not at all a document to be considered because a private entity is preparing the document.”
Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria then submitted,
“So without a pleading in that regard, my lord, would your lordship issue a mandamus, my lord? That is, my lord, my respectful submission. And especially when the saturation point is beyond 100%. In many states, 106% documents are there, my lord, saturation point.”
He added,
“I just wanted to show, my Lord, the Aadhaar can be used and is used to issue foreigners also, so a document which is used to foreigners also, my Lord, cannot be used. That’s my respectful submission. Lordship will consider that.”
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal then began his submissions, stating,
“let’s just look at Article 324 and 326.”
He questioned the nature of control exercised by the Election Commission, submitting,
“The question is how transparent is that control? That’s the question. How is it a rule-based control? Is it a rule-based procedure? Because every act ultimately, this is not a judicial order. It’s an administrative act.”
Referring to Article 326, he read out,
“The election to the House of the People and to the Legislative Assembly of every state shall be on the basis of adult suffrage, that is to say, every person who is a citizen of India. Just mark those words.”
He further emphasised,
“Who is a citizen of India and who is not less than 18 years of age on such day as may be fixed in this behalf, in that behalf, by or under the law, any law made by the appropriate legislature, and is not otherwise disqualified under this constitution.”
Justice Bagchi then asked,
“Normally if somebody says one of your parents is not a citizen, let’s say that. Who is going to decide that? Can’t be decided by the commission, because the power to grant something has includes the power to withdraw it.”
He further asked,
“In such situation, who decides, central government or the EC?”
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal replied,
“Central government, obviously, It’s the central government which can decide, because my citizenship can’t be taken away. That’s why I’m not disqualified.”
He further submitted,
“The existence of the power may be there, but the exercise may be arbitrary. Uninformed or That it cannot be unwritten.”
He stressed,
“There must be transparency and accountability of every power, howsoever high and constitutional it is.”
Warning of misuse, he stated,
“So number one, he will say that, look, I don’t have a birth certificate. Millions of people don’t have. Prima facie, you are not a citizen of India. And I will remove you from the roll. So everybody has to go up in appeal.”
He cautioned,
“These are not exercises that can be done overnight. These are not exercises that can be done a few days before the election or two months before the election. and on an all-India basis.”
He further argued,
“Exercise of executive power, administrative power, must be based on reasons which are germane to that power.”
Summing up, he submitted,
“Section 16 must be read harmoniously with Articles 324 and 326: a person cannot be removed from the electoral roll unless a competent authority under law has decided that the individual is not a citizen of India.”
He concluded,
“Citizenship, once established, can only be terminated by Parliament under the statutory scheme of the Citizenship Act.”
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan then highlighted the importance of electoral rolls, stating that they are often the primary proof of citizenship for rural Indians.
He argued,
“The SIR in Bihar has shifted the onus into citizens already enrolled and who have participated in multiple elections to prove their citizenship a new.”
He submitted,
“The electoral roll, for most adult Indians, is the primary proof of citizenship, especially in rural areas, and protects fundamental rights including the right to vote.”
Referring to statutory limits, he stated,
“Section 21(3) of the 1950 Act is very narrow: it allows the EC to direct a special revision for any constituency or part thereof, but not for the entire country simultaneously.”
He further said,
“So ADR for 20 years has done what the Election Commission has not done in exercise of their so-called plenary powers.”
Political leader Yogendra Yadav, in a brief rejoinder, stated,
“I am also grateful to the Election Commission for one important thing: they have not disputed a single factual assertion that I have placed before this Court.”
He pointed out,
“The SIR has resulted in a sharp and abnormal decline in the Electoral Population Ratio in Bihar.”
He added,
“The disease had already been cured before the medicine was administered.”
Highlighting exclusion, he stated,
“every single state is losing voters. There is not one exception. The only exception is Assam, where SIR was not conducted.”
He further warned,
“wherever SIR is applied, women will be disproportionately excluded.”
Concluding, he stated,
“Tumhe appeal karni hai ya naam shamil karwana?”
The matter will continue to be heard tomorrow.
Case Title:
ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ORS. Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA [W.P.(C) No. 640/2025 PIL-W].
Read Live Coverage:
Click Here to Read More Reports On Electoral Roll Revision
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
