The Supreme Court heard petitions challenging the Special Intensive Revision of Bihar’s electoral rolls, raising concerns about de novo preparation of voter lists and citizenship checks. Petitioners argued the process is arbitrary, excludes voters, and exceeds the Election Commission’s statutory powers.
The Supreme Court resumed hearing ADR’s challenge to Bihar’s Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, raising concerns over transparency, Aadhaar use, and voter deletions. Senior advocates warned that shifting the burden of proving citizenship to voters threatens the constitutional right to vote.
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a PIL challenging NBEMS’s decision to lower NEET-PG 2025 cut-off marks for SC/ST/OBC candidates, including allowing counselling at minus 40 marks. The Court noted that the issue is a policy decision, already rejected by the Delhi High Court and pending before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court resumed hearing on ADR’s plea challenging Bihar’s Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, amid concerns over voter exclusion and fairness. The Election Commission defended the exercise, arguing that Article 326 and election laws fully empower it to revise rolls to protect electoral integrity.
The Supreme Court resumed hearing ADR-led petitions challenging the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar, focusing on the limits of the Election Commission’s powers. The Bench examined whether the SIR process violates constitutional principles of manifest arbitrariness and voter rights.
