The Supreme Court Today (July 10) is hearing over 10 petitions challenging the Election Commission’s decision to carry out a massive voter list update in Bihar. Petitioners argue it’s arbitrary and illegal, but the court observed the EC is acting as per constitutional mandate.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India began hearing several petitions challenging the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) move to conduct a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls in Bihar, a state that will soon go to polls.
The matter was taken up by a bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Joymalya Bagchi during a Partial Working Day (PWD) session.
Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the ECI, raised initial objections to the petitions. The EC was also represented by senior lawyers K K Venugopal and Maninder Singh.
From the side of the petitioners, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan explained that the voter list revision should only be carried out according to the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
He clarified:
“This is revision of electoral rolls… the only relevant provision is the Representation of Peoples Act 1950… what is permitted under act and rules is that regular revision of rolls can happen. One is intensive revision and one is summary revision. Intensive is entire roll is effaced and entire exercise is new where all 7.9 crores have to go through SIR. In summary, small amendments are made to the roll. What happened here is to order a special intensive revision.”
When the Court noted that the term “Special Intensive Revision” is not found in the law, Gopal agreed:
“Yes, not in act and rules. First time in the history. They say first one is in 2003 where it was 4 crore people… now it’s about 7.9 crore people and about 10 elections done since then. Now with polls months away they are carrying out this where draft has to be out in 30 days. Despite amendments made to act where Aadhaar is allowed for verification they say now Aadhaar will not be considered.”
He also criticized the EC’s logic of using the 2003 voter rolls as a base:
“They say if you are in 2003 rolls, you can avoid parents’ documents. Else others will have to prove citizenship. They have made exemptions for the arts, sports people, and that is completely arbitrary and discriminatory.”
Justice Dhulia pointed out inconsistencies in the documents filed with different petitions:
“In 2 petitions, 2 different notifications have been attached.”
ALSO READ: BREAKING| Bihar Voter List Row: SC to Hear Pleas Against EC’s Revision on July 10
To this, Gopal replied:
“There are 4 documents of June 24. Let us go through one by one.”
Justice Dhulia responded by defending the EC’s move:
“What they are doing is mandate under the constitution. You cannot say that they are doing something which is not a mandate under the constitution, you see. They have fixed a date of 2003 since an intensive exercise has been conducted. They have data for that. Why should they scratch their head again? ECI has a logic behind this.”
But Gopal sharply disagreed:
“This process has no basis under the law. It is arbitrary and discriminatory. The fact that they have put artificial line in 2003 is something which the law does not allow. Revision procedure is laid down in 1950 act.”
The judges questioned the nature and timing of the EC’s revision process:
“This intensive revision and summary revision is in rules. Tell us when is the commission expected to carry this out—when? Periodically or when… You are not challenging the powers of ECI but the manner in which it is being conducted.”
Justice Bagchi asked:
“Do you think subsection 3 of section 21 is being involved?”
Gopal replied:
“They are relying on it.”
The Court clarified:
“We think subsection 3 is non obstante clause entrusted on the ECI to carry out the intensive process. So the power is traceable to subsection 3.”
Gopal continued:
“Subsection 1 is omnibus. Subsection 2 is summary and 3 is intensive.”
To which the bench asked:
“So why did legislature employ two separate provisions… Subsection 1 prescribed procedure as per rules and subsection 3 prescribed a definite way. Why is that so?”
Justice Bagchi observed the argument regarding Aadhaar exclusion:
“The contention that Aadhaar has been considered a reliable ID under the principal act and thus excluding this now is unlawful. This is what you are arguing.”
Gopal added:
“If 7.5 crore voters are there now, how can they be removed en masse.”
He also said:
“In Bihar, the final electoral roll was in existence in June itself.”
Justice Dhulia defended some inclusions:
“ECI is including the judges, journalists, arts people in this since they are already known. Let us not stretch this. Let us not get into the bylanes and let us be on the highway.”
Justice Bagchi summarized the key concern:
“Your main contention is the exclusion of Aadhaar from the batch of documents permitted.”
“If you are to check citizenship… then you should have acted early; it is a bit late”
-Supreme Court Pulls Up EC Over Last-Minute Voter List Drive in Bihar
EC informs bench:
“Citizenship is required to be checked for being voter in India under Article 326 of Constitution.”
Currently, over 10 petitions have been filed, including one by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR).
Several political leaders have also approached the top court, including:
- RJD MP Manoj Jha
- TMC MP Mahua Moitra
- Congress’ K C Venugopal
- NCP (SP)’s Supriya Sule
- CPI’s D Raja
- SP’s Harinder Singh Malik
- Shiv Sena (UBT)’s Arvind Sawant
- JMM’s Sarfraz Ahmed
- CPI (ML)’s Dipankar Bhattacharya
They are all seeking to quash the EC’s order on the grounds that it violates legal procedure and creates unnecessary hurdles for crores of voters just before elections.
CASE TITLE:
Association for Democratic Reforms v Election Commission of India
W.P.(C) No. 640/2025 PIL-W
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Revision of Electoral Roll in Bihar
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Bihar Voter List
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
