By Dr. Gyan Pathak
The crux of the observations and suggestions made by the Supreme Court of India in the matter of Special Intensive Revision of Electoral Roll in Bihar is that the Election Commission of India (ECI) has to follow the well laid procedure under the law, and cannot have intent to exclude electors from the voter list.
The deadline of submission of documents by the electors is July 25, and the Supreme Court will be hearing the case next on July 28. By that time many things will be known, such as how the ECI has been going ahead with its constitutional responsibility of revision of the electoral roll, and how far people would be able to meet the deadline for submission of documents that the ECI has given them.
While allowing the SIR, the Bench of the Supreme Court comprised of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Joymalya Bagchi had actually made significant observations and suggestions while hearing the bunch of petitions on July 10, 2025 challenging the ECI’s order of June 24 for SIR of Electoral Roll of Bihar. The petitioners had alleged that the exercise was intended to delete large number of electors from the voter list.
Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi appearing on behalf of the ECI, had submitted, “Election Commission is one constitutional body which is in direct relationship with the elector. It cannot and does not have any intent whatsoever to exclude anybody from the voter list unless and until the hands of the Commission are compelled by the provision of law itself.”
On the ECI’s submission Justice Dhulia had concluded the hearing with his remark, “We have serious doubt on whether you can follow this timeline. Remember, you have to follow the procedure. It is something that is not practical.”
Additionally, the Bench also asked the ECI to consider Aadhaar card, voter ID card, and ration card as acceptable documents for inclusion of names in the voter list. It is a significant suggestion because a large number of people in Bihar do not have any of the 11 documents that the ECI has declared acceptable.
The Supreme Court has asked three pertinent questions to the ECI: one, about the EC’s very authority to conduct a “special intensive revision”; two, about the valid procedure, including what it can ask for; and then the timing of the exercise, just months ahead of the assembly polls. The ECI is supposed to answer these questions by the next hearing.
Most haunting issue for the electors of Bihar at this point of time is that if they will not be able to provide documents within the deadline given to them which will end on July 25, their name will be deleted not only from the voter list but they might be treated as not a citizen of India or even as infiltrators from other countries.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for a petitioner RJD MP Manoj Jha said, “The burden is not on me to prove citizenship. Before they remove me from electoral roll, they have to show that they have some document in their possession that proves that I am not a citizen.”
The Supreme Court said that citizenship is an issue to be determined not by the Election Commission of India, but by the Ministry of Home Affairs. Justice Bagchi questioned the ECI’s exclusion of Aadhaar, and said “Even these other documents by themselves don’t prove citizenship.”
ECI’s order has made it mandatory for the electors of Bihar whose name was not in the Electoral Roll of 2003 to prove their citizenship, and also of their parents. The order effectively requires a person born after 1987 to prove their own citizenship along with the citizenship of their parents to get his or her name included in the revised in the electoral roll.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaran Narayan appearing on behalf of one of the petitioners pointed out that Aadhaar is an acceptable document as per the Representation of Peoples Act, but the ECI is not considering it a valid document for Bihar SIR of Electoral Rolls.
The bench then asked the ECI why? Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi appearing on behalf of the ECI has simply said, “Aadhaar Card cannot be used as proof of citizenship.” On which Justice Bagchi said, “That (citizenship determination) is a different issue and the prerogative of Home Ministry.”
Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia remarked: “… citizenship is an issue to be determined not by the Election Commission of India, but by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs.” On this ECI’s lawyer said that the poll panel has the powers to check for citizenship for voting rights, under the Article 326 of the Constitution of India. He also said that the ECI has role as the Representation of People Act, 1950 mandate that one must be a citizen to vote.
The issue of proof of citizenship and the jurisdiction of ECI will come up in the future hearings, since it is still a matter that is haunting the electors of Bihar. Even Justice Dhulia has found that the issue of determination of citizenship can’t be settled within the deadline.
“Isn’t it too late now for that?, asked Justice Dhulia to ECI, adding, “Your decision, let us say to disenfranchise the person who is already there on the electoral roll of 2025, would compel this individual to appeal against the decision and go through this entire rigmarole and thereby be denied of his right to vote in the ensuing election.” He also said, “They are saying that you are asking people for documents suddenly which they don’t have.”
Then the issue of giving reasonable time also came for argument since the ECI had given a deadline of only 30 days to submit documents. Justice Bagchi questioned the practicality of ECI, “This timeline … why just 30 days? The census will take a year.”
On this ECI’s lawyer assured the court that all eligible voters would be included and that hearings would be held in case of objections, adding, “Let the revision exercise be completed. And then your lordship can look at the entire picture.”
Supreme Court then allowed the SIR exercise, with caution. However, the larger questions will come in the future hearing, including whether the ECI’s order is arbitrary and unconstitutional violating fundamental rights, or violates the principle of due process and natural justice? (IPA Service)
