The Supreme Court resumed hearing the ADR petition questioning voter verification norms and electoral transparency. Senior Advocate Rakesh defended the SIR process, while the Court stressed equality, inclusion, and citizens’ right to vote.
The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday resumed hearing a public interest litigation raising serious questions about electoral transparency and the voters’ right to information. The matter is being heard in a case that challenges aspects of the voter verification and enrolment process.
Senior Advocate Rakesh, appearing in the matter, began his submissions by explaining the statutory framework governing elections. He stated that the Representation of the People Act, 1951 deals with the conduct of elections, while the 1950 Act concerns the preparation of electoral rolls.
Referring to statutory provisions, he said,
“mentioned 1951 act with the conduct of elections, 1950 deals with preparation of elections. referred section 62 of the 1951 act which states that you are entitled to be registered”.
Continuing his arguments, Rakesh relied on constitutional and judicial precedents. He referred to paragraph 166 of a previous judgment and also relied on another case to briefly explain the legal position.
As recorded during the hearing,
“Mentioned para 166 of bandwal case that volume 5a and then mention to refer lal babu hussain case to mention the case judgment briefly .”
He then stressed that the Constitution itself places clear limits and duties on electoral authorities. According to him,
“mentioned article 324-326 read with section19 , place a constitutional obligation to enroll only citizens as voters, reflecting the clear intent of the framers of the Constitution.”
Addressing concerns around documentation and voter verification, the senior counsel clarified that the process does not impose a blanket requirement on all voters. He explained that only a limited category of individuals are required to produce documents.
In his words,
“This is not a case where a blanket presumption is being cast on everyone to furnish documents. Until June 2025, individuals who can establish a linkage with their parents’ names appearing in the earlier list are considered compliant. Only those unable to demonstrate such linkage are required, as directed by the Court, to produce the eleven specified documents, including Aadhaar. The nature of the SIR inquiry, I submit, is distinct and limited in scope.”
He further questioned whether sufficient evidentiary value had been attached to the material on record and explained how the process functions at the ground level.
During his submissions, he said,
“mention “adequate probative value” have we attached? For others without a link, 11 specific documents are required. BLOs are authorized to submit up to 50 forms per day. He added that it is improper to take a case from West Bengal and apply it to a completely different situation where SIR is conducted differently”.
Rakesh then emphasised the constitutional relationship between Parliament and the Election Commission. He urged the Court to recognise this balance, stating,
“Request lordship that there is a symbiotic relationship between parliament and ECI. Mention (article-327) therefor to stand in symbiotic relationship.”
Developing this argument further, he submitted that neither Parliament nor the Election Commission can act beyond constitutional limits. He described the nature of the order under challenge by saying,
“Subject to the limits impose restrictions on the parliament and plus ECI cannot say we have the field to do whatever we want. our SIR order is legislative in character, it lays down a complete set of principles and documents. (Have my written submission)”.
He also relied on other constitutional provisions and statutory sections, adding,
“(mention article 324) and 169 of the representative act. (326 can’t go against 327 )”.
During the hearing, Justice Bagchi made an important observation on the evolution of democratic systems worldwide. Reflecting on constitutional values, he remarked,
“Looking at the history of democracy around the world, early systems were elitist—only property owners could vote. Our Constitution, however, doesn’t just copy that model. It broadens democracy, making it inclusive for everyone.”
The Chief Justice of India also highlighted the foundational values of the Constitution, referring to the principles of equality and fraternity.
Responding to these observations, Rakesh reiterated his core submission on participatory democracy, stating,
“from my submission Democracy is a country by people. so its a participative exercise.”
As the hearing progressed towards the end of the day, Rakesh sought permission to continue his arguments. He asked, “Shall I continue tomorrow?”, to which the Chief Justice replied, “Yes”.
The matter will now continue before the Supreme Court, with further submissions expected on the constitutional limits of electoral verification and the balance between voter inclusion and institutional authority.
Case Title:
Association for Democratic Reforms and Ors. versus Election Commission of India,
W.P.(C) No. 640/2025 (PIL-W)
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
