The Election Commission has been granted time until 21 July to file its response. The court did not pass any interim order. Next hearing is on 28 July.
Published Jul 10, 2025 | 1:21 PM ⚊ Updated Jul 10, 2025 | 6:52 PM
The Supreme Court of India. (iStock)
Synopsis: The Supreme Court heard a batch of petitions challenging the ECI’s decision to conduct a Special Intensive Revision of Bihar’s electoral rolls just months before the Assembly elections. Appearing for the EC, Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi said no one will be deleted without notice or being heard.
The Supreme Court on Thursday, 10 July, asked the the Election Commission of India (ECI) to consider Aadhaar card, voter ID card and ration card as acceptable documents for the “Special Intensive Revision” of electoral rolls in Bihar.
On the ECI’s submission that it had notified 11 documents as acceptable in its 24 June directive, the court noted that it was not exhaustive. The next hearing has been scheduled for 28 July.
“We have noted that anyway you have said your list is not exhaustive. If you have good reason to discard Aadhar you do it, give reasons,” Live Law reported the court as saying.
The court was hearing a batch of petitions challenging the ECI’s decision to conduct a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Bihar’s electoral rolls just months before the Assembly elections.
A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi heard petitions filed by opposition MPs, civil society groups and activists, who argued the exercise lacked legal basis, risked disenfranchising voters, and was timed to affect the coming polls.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan argued that the Representation of the People Act, 1950 only permits intensive or summary revisions, and the so-called “Special Intensive Revision” had no statutory backing. “This is arbitrary and discriminatory,” he said, criticising exemptions given to some categories while others had to prove citizenship afresh.
Justice Bagchi asked pointedly: “Your main contention is the exclusion of Aadhaar from the batch of documents permitted.”
Meanwhile, the bench directed the EC to file its counter-affidavit within one week, with any rejoinder to be filed before 28 July.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal argued that the EC lacked authority to decide citizenship: “If I am born after 1950, I am a citizen of India. If someone challenges that, it has to be proven. The officer has to verify at my home. This exercise is completely beyond the remit of ECI.”
He warned of a chilling impact on migrants: “One crore people are migrants in Bihar.”
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi said the move effectively amounted to a citizenship screening: “Disenfranchisement of even one voter impacts democracy and the basic structure. This is all en masse where all are put in a suspended Trishanku state.”
Advocate Vrinda Grover added: “This screening will only impact the poor and marginalised. Once I am not on the rolls, you will move to send me to foreign tribunals. This is completely exclusionary.”
Justice Dhulia highlighted the gravity of the issue: “There is no question that the issue before the court goes to the root of democracy and the right to vote.” He also noted citizenship verification demands “strict appreciation of evidence and a quasi-judicial authority.”
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan argued that the central issue across all the petitions was the omission of Aadhaar and the Election Commission’s own voter ID card from the list of acceptable documents for enumeration.
Justice Bagchi noted that the official list was “not an exhaustive list,” to which Sankarnarayanan replied that the “ECI in 2020 had already clarified that.”
The bench questioned the ECI counsel on whether Aadhaar had in fact been rejected, saying, “We will ask for a clarification.” The ECI’s lawyer responded that the process “had not reached that stage yet,” adding “Aadhaar card cannot be used as proof of citizenship.” Justice Bagchi remarked that this question of citizenship was “the prerogative of the Home Ministry.”
The bench questioned the timing of the exercise with Justice Bagchi asking: “Why link this process to an incoming election at all?”
Appearing for the EC, Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi defended the move, saying the ECI had constitutional powers of “superintendence, direction and control” over elections and rolls: “If ECI does not have the power to prepare and update the electoral roll, then a different body has to be found.”
He assured the court: “No one will be deleted without notice or being heard.”
Sibal cautioned the bench about the severe consequences of the EC’s approach, arguing that striking someone from the electoral roll went far beyond merely denying them the vote.
“The moment I am removed from the electoral roll, I lose my Article 19 rights, I lose all my citizens’ rights. They don’t have the power to do it,” he told the court. Emphasising citizenship by birth, he said, “If I am born after 1950, I am a citizen of India. If someone is challenging that, then it has to be proven. The officer has to go to their home and verify.” He warned that such demands were especially punitive in Bihar, where “one crore people are migrants,” calling the exercise “completely beyond the remit of ECI.”
In response, Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the Election Commission, defended the move as necessary to maintain an accurate electoral roll.
“Some petitions say that some 1.1 crore persons have died and 70 lakh have migrated. That itself makes a case for intensive revision,” he argued, stressing the need for a thorough update to preserve electoral integrity.
When the bench pressed the nature of the documentation required, it observed, “All the documents you have listed are related to identity. The entire exercise is about identity.” Dwivedi replied, “We are looking from all aspects. Citizenship, age, etc.”
He further explained the process, saying, “The political parties have been authorised to go door to door with the prefilled forms and get signatures. We will get the forms, and then all of that will be put in the ECI net. So 3.1 crores have to do nothing except fill the form.”
Justice Bagchi questioned, “Why citizenship? Only identity. None of these illustrative documents that you listed are by themselves proof of citizenship.”
When Dwivedi pointed to the birth register as evidence, Justice Bagchi replied, “That is one. But the others are about whether a person resides here, etc. Including Aadhaar does not interfere with the policy that you are describing here.” Dwivedi responded, “We would include Aadhaar but for the law.”
The bench, however, noted that even the documents currently accepted by the EC are not definitive proof of citizenship, observing, “Even these other documents by themselves don’t prove citizenship.”
Dwivedi also highlighted the expanded range of documents now permitted for verification, saying, “In 2003, there were only three documents. Now we have 11 documents.”
Justice Bagchi, however, questioned the tight timeframe for the exercise, asking, “This timeline… why just 30 days? The census will take a year.” Dwivedi replied, “Census for the entire country will take a year,” suggesting the scale of the two exercises was different, but defending the need for a focused, time-bound revision in the state.
Dwivedi described the EC’s efforts to inform voters and collect forms and urged the court not to stop the exercise.
Justice Dhulia replied, “We are not stopping you,” but added a caution about practicality: “We have a serious doubt on whether you can follow this timeline. Remember, you have to follow the procedure. It is something that is not practical.”
When the court said it would list the matter in July, Dwivedi insisted, “Let us publish the draft. You can stop us later.”
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan argued that the ideal solution would be to use the existing January 2025 electoral roll as the draft.
The bench recorded that “an important question has been raised in this bunch of petitions before this court, which goes to the very root of the functioning of a republic that is our country. The question is of the right to vote.”
The order noted that the petitioners argued the EC’s order “is not only violative of fundamental rights of the voters under Articles 14, 21 and Articles 324, 325 and 326 of the Constitution but is also violative of the provisions of the Representation of People Act 1950 and the rules framed therein.”
“We are of the considered view that the matter needs hearing before the appropriate court on 28 July 2025,” the order stated.
The bench recorded Dwivedi’s submission that the list of 11 documents for verification is “not exhaustive” as indicated in the EC June order. The court noted, “It is our view that the Election Commission will also consider the following documents such as the Aadhaar card, the EPIC voter ID card issued by the Election Commission, and the ration card.”
It further recorded that the petitioners were not pressing for an interim stay at this stage, given that the draft electoral roll is to be published only on 1 August.
