The Supreme Court Today (July 10) said the Election Commission’s clean-up of Bihar’s voter list is constitutional and logical, but its timing — just before elections — may deprive citizens of their voting rights. The court also questioned why Aadhaar and voter ID cards were not accepted as valid proof.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India today raised concerns about the timing of the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls in Bihar, which comes just a few months before the State Assembly elections.
While the court appreciated the logic and necessity behind the revision, it questioned why it was happening now, potentially putting the voting rights of many at risk.
“What they are doing is a mandate under the Constitution. There is a practicality involved. They fixed the date because it was the first time after computerisation. So there is a logic.”
The two-judge bench, consisting of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, clearly stated that the intent behind the EC’s move was not wrong — the goal of removing non-citizens from the voter list was valid — but the timing could cause real harm.
“Your (ECI) exercise is not the problem, it is the timing,”
the court said.
Why Is the Voter List Being Revised?
Last month, the Election Commission of India (ECI) announced a special revision of the Bihar voter list.
According to the EC, large-scale changes over the past 20 years, including additions and deletions, may have led to duplicate or invalid voter entries.
However, this decision was met with strong opposition, particularly from Congress and Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), who accused the EC of trying to manipulate the electoral process ahead of the state elections.
What the Petitioners Said
Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing the petitioners, argued that the EC’s method was “arbitrary and discriminatory”.
He emphasized that the issue was not with the EC’s powers, but how they were being used.
“They are saying that before 2003 the presumption of citizenship is in your favour. However, after 2003, even if you have voted in five elections, it doesn’t matter whether the presumption of citizenship is not in your favour.”
In short, he said that citizens who have been voting for decades are now being forced to prove their citizenship again, simply because they registered after 2003 — a rule that lacks fairness.
Aadhaar and Voter ID Not Accepted
One of the biggest issues raised in court was the rejection of Aadhaar cards and Voter ID cards as valid documents to prove identity during the revision. The EC has released a list of 11 documents that can be used — and surprisingly, Aadhaar and Voter ID are not on that list.
The court was surprised by this decision and questioned the EC directly.
The court asked why Aadhaar was excluded, and the EC replied that Aadhaar cannot be used as proof of citizenship. The court responded that this was a different matter altogether and comes under the Home Ministry, not the Election Commission.
The EC’s lawyer then requested the court to allow the revision to go on and offered to submit the final list for review.
“Let the revision exercise be completed. And then your lordships can look at the entire picture… We will show it before it is finalised”,
-the EC counsel said.
Supreme Court Again Questions Timing
The timing of the exercise was the main focus of the court’s concern.
The judges highlighted that many people may lose their voting rights without having a chance to appeal before the elections.
“Your exercise is not the problem… it is the timing,”
-Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia repeated.
“There is nothing wrong in the exercise… except that a person will be disenfranchised ahead of the election and s/he won’t have the time to defend the exclusion before voting.”
Final Concerns from Petitioners
Advocate Sankaranarayanan repeated that the exercise was not just poorly timed but unfair to long-time voters.
He called the revision “arbitrary” and “discriminative”, stressing that people who have been on the list for 10+ years are being forced to re-verify themselves suddenly and urgently.
TODAY’S HEARING IN DETAIL
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.
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
