Today, On 11th November, The Supreme Court stayed all High Court proceedings on the validity of the electoral roll revision across Bihar, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, and Pondicherry, directing that the matter be centrally heard, and scheduled the next hearing for November 26.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court heard fresh petitions from Tamil Nadu and West Bengal challenging the ongoing Special Revision of Electoral Rolls (SIR) exercise. While the Bihar SIR case has been heard by the Court on multiple occasions, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal came up for hearing for the first time today.
At the beginning of the hearing, Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the Election Commission of India (ECI), informed the Bench that new petitions had been filed from Bengal and Tamil Nadu, but the Commission had not been served with copies.
Justice Kant responded,
“We haven’t issued notice. We’ll hear those fresh matters first.”
Appearing for Tamil Nadu, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, on behalf of Bharti, argued that a uniform approach across states was not feasible due to varying local conditions.
He submitted,
“If you have an exercise like this which applies across the board… the situation in different states is different. This monsoon season in TN there would be a lot of rain… that might not be in other states. It’s always heavy during November and December. It’s not uniform across the country. The BLOs etc will have to manage the flood relief as well. Dec Jan is harvest season too in TN. Time is not conducive. Christmas vacations will also be declared; there might be minimal participation in the enumeration process. This may not be relevant in other states.”
Justice Kant observed,
“I think they have rectified a deficiency.”
Sibal then raised concerns over the lack of clarity in the procedure, saying,
“There are areas where there is no connectivity at all. Where are you going to upload all these things? We don’t have any timeline for submission of documents, who will serve the notice, what format the notice will be, what format, etc. Nothing is specified.”
Justice Kant responded,
“Why are you people so apprehensive? They’ll have to answer. They’ll do it.”
Sibal continued,
“The process has started. Previously, at least during the exercise, notice was given. Now they have changed that process.”
Reading from his argument note, he further said,
“Lakhs of forms cannot be digitised before the publication. This will ultimately be a farcical exercise.”
Expressing concern over the speed of the exercise, Sibal remarked,
“Why this great hurry? We don’t understand.”
Justice Kant replied,
“Everybody wants a status quo.”
Clarifying his stand, Sibal said,
“This is not an adversarial exercise. But what we see down the road it’s like that. We are giving suggestions.”
After hearing the submissions, the Bench directed,
“ Issue notice. Let counter affidavit…”
Sibal pressed further that the process could not be completed in such a short time, stating,
“It cannot happen in one month. Bengal is much worse. There is no connectivity. There is no 5G no 4G.”
Justice Kant commented,
“You people want to protect as if the voter list is being prepared for the first time in the country.”
To this, Sibal responded that earlier revisions were much more detailed,
“This never used to happen before. It took 3 years earlier. Now they’re saying one month. Ultimately, lakhs of people are going to be excluded.”
Justice Kant assured,
“You file your counter affidavit. We are issuing notice. If we are satisfied, we will annul the exercise. We are issuing notice in all the writ petitions.”
The Bench then granted two weeks’ time for filing responses.
Justice Kant added,
“Yes, on factual and other issues, they will verify and respond to it.”
Dwivedi informed the Court that
“There are 12 states where this exercise is being undertaken. The high courts may not take up. Calcutta High Court has fixed a time period.”
Responding to that, Justice Kant said,
“Yes, we will ask the High Courts to keep the proceedings in abeyance.”
The Court then passed an order stating,
“Since this court is dealing with the matter pertaining to the validity of SIR of electoral rolls of various states, including Bihar, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Pondicherry, etc., we request the jurisdictional High Courts to keep in abeyance the writ proceedings, if any, touching the validity of the SIR of electoral rolls in their respective states.”
Towards the end, Sibal made a light remark, saying,
“Keep it 25th it will be an auspicious day.”
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