Today, On 11th November, The Supreme Court questioned the poll body’s authority to decide citizenship during the Special Summary Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, saying “If ECI Has No Power, It Won’t,” while hearing pleas challenging the exercise in Bihar, Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal.
The Supreme Court heard several petitions on Tuesday that challenge the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar. Concerns were raised regarding data protection, voter verification, and the Commission’s authority in determining citizenship.
Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi listened to arguments presented by Advocate Prashant Bhushan for the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi representing the ECI.
Bhushan contended that the “ECI has no authority to verify citizenship” through the SIR and claimed that numerous voters appeared multiple times with the same photographs.
He noted that the Commission possesses de-duplication software to tackle such problems but “isn’t using it.”
Additionally, he called for acknowledgment slips for enumeration forms and requested access to the 2003 electoral rolls in a searchable format to enhance transparency.
Justice Surya Kant remarked that if the ECI holds such powers, it must operate within legal boundaries, stating,
“If it has no power, it won’t.”
Justice Bagchi expressed concerns over data privacy, indicating,
“The Election Commission holds citizens’ data in trust, it’s a valuable asset. Instead of public access, encrypted verification could protect voter information.”
When Bhushan questioned why the ECI could not provide the data in a machine-readable format, Justice Bagchi responded,
“You still lock your house even if it can be broken; the same logic applies to data protection.”
Dwivedi maintained that “the voter should be in focus, not the analysers,” highlighting that SIR practices differ by state.
Justice Kant added that local circumstances and literacy levels should be factored in while executing reforms.
In a related case, Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay presented a petition challenging Form 6, which permits Aadhaar as proof of identity for voter registration.
Justice Bagchi noted that “UIDAI notifications cannot override the Representation of the People Act,” describing Form 6 as delegated legislation under the Act. Upadhyay warned that “demographic changes in nearly 200 of 800 districts” pose national security concerns.
The Bench, however, scheduled the matter to be taken up on November 26.
Earlier, On October 9, the Court instructed the Bihar State Legal Services Authority (SLSA) to provide immediate support to individuals reportedly excluded from Bihar’s final voter rolls during the ECI’s SIR ahead of the Assembly elections.
The ECI had previously stated to the Court that the voter roll revision in Bihar adhered to due process and that no genuine voter complaints had been lodged; only objections had arisen from Delhi-based NGOs through data analysis.
Earlier, on September 15, the Court had assumed that the ECI, as a constitutional entity, was adhering to legal standards in conducting the SIR of Bihar’s electoral rolls and warned that any illegality could invalidate the process.
Additionally, On September 8, the Court clarified that Aadhaar cards issued under the Aadhaar Act, 2016, would be accepted as the 12th document for identity verification in the revised electoral rolls of Bihar prior to the Assembly elections.
Notably, on September 1, the Bench emphasized that the ECI had already established adequate safeguards and reiterated that claims and objections could be submitted even after the statutory deadline of September 1. It also cautioned against political parties attempting to elevate Aadhaar’s legal status beyond what is allowed by law, making it clear that Aadhaar cannot serve as standalone proof of citizenship.
In its defense, the ECI had characterized the exercise as lawful, necessary, and in the public interest. An interim application was filed by ADR on August 8 concerning the SIR of electoral rolls in Bihar, raising serious concerns about the exclusion of over 65 lakh names from the draft rolls. The Apex Court requested a response from the ECI.
On July 29, the Court stated it would closely monitor the ongoing Bihar electoral rolls if petitioners could identify even 15 individuals who had been removed from the rolls.
The Supreme Court reiterated on July 28 that it would not stay the SIR of electoral rolls in Bihar, with Justice Surya Kant asserting that,
“There should not be mass exclusion.. we want mass inclusion.”
Recently, ADR informed the Supreme Court that the ECI had not provided valid reasons for excluding Aadhaar, EPIC, and ration cards from the list of acceptable documents during the SIR of electoral rolls.
Previously, the ECI had argued that Aadhaar, Electoral Photo Identity Cards (EPIC), and ration cards were not valid proof of citizenship. In a detailed affidavit responding to the petitions challenging the revision drive, the Commission maintained that these documents lacked legal validity for determining citizenship and could not be relied upon to validate voter eligibility.
Case Title: ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ORS. V ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA W.P.(C) No. 640/2025
Read More Reports On Bihar Voter List Row