Supreme Court will today hear a clutch of petitions challenging the Special Intensive Revision of Bihar’s electoral rolls, a process the Election Commission says is designed to cleanse the rolls ahead of the 2025 Assembly elections. A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi is set to consider submissions from political parties and civil society groups contesting the legality and execution of the June 24 directive ordering the state-wide exercise.
At the heart of the dispute is whether the special revision has strayed beyond the Representation of the People Act and created unreasonable hurdles for voters, particularly those without ready access to documentation. The petitions include those by the Rashtriya Janata Dal and the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen, among others, with the Association for Democratic Reforms also pursuing challenges to the framework and its impact. Supreme Court examines Bihar electoral roll revision case captures the thrust of today’s listing, which follows multiple days of arguments through August on the contours of the revision, its timelines and safeguards.
The poll panel has defended the exercise, telling the Court that 99.5% of the 7.24 crore electors named in the draft roll have already submitted eligibility documents. It has also said that any elector flagged for defects will receive a notice and seven days to cure them. The Court, while declining to extend the 1 September window for claims and objections, recorded the Commission’s undertaking that it would continue to entertain corrections and objections beyond that date, preserving the ability of voters to be heard before deletions or changes are finalised.
Procedurally, the Commission published the draft rolls on 1 August; the claims-and-objections phase ran through 1 September; and final publication is slated for 30 September. The Bench has also directed that district legal services authorities deploy paralegal volunteers to assist electors and to report back, with the compiled inputs due to be considered today as the matter resumes.
One sensitive fault line is documentation. While the Court has allowed electors to use Aadhaar among the permissible proofs to support claims or objections, it has been categorical that Aadhaar, by itself, is not a conclusive proof of citizenship for enrolment. The Court’s position aligns with the statutory scheme requiring citizenship to be established through legally recognised evidence, not a single identifier.
Political contestation has intensified around the scale and method of the drive. Parties have flagged fears of mass deletions affecting migrant workers and the poor, citing figures in public discourse about large numbers flagged as “untraceable” or “dead,” claims the Commission rejects as speculative and premature absent due process. The Court has, for its part, pressed parties to proactively assist electors and has underlined that the revision must remain voter-friendly, with no removal effected without notice and an opportunity to respond.
As the hearings proceed, the Commission’s evolving clarifications have drawn scrutiny. Coverage of the revision notes shifts in guidance on acceptable proofs and form requirements through the SIR calendar, even as the Commission maintains that its core objective is accuracy and inclusivity without disenfranchising eligible voters. Separately, field data show a proportion of applicants submitted proofs outside the Commission’s list of 11 acceptable documents, raising follow-up verification tasks for officials before the final roll is published.
Bold Retribution: Kejriwal Demands 75 % Tariff on US Imports 