The Supreme Court has decided not to halt the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, but it has raised some serious concerns about the timing of the exercise, especially with Assembly elections just a few months away. While refusing to pause the process, a bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi questioned why such a major verification effort is being carried out so close to polling day.
During the hearing of a set of petitions that challenged the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) decision, the Court emphasized it had no reason to doubt the ECI’s intentions, but added that the issue at hand touches the very heart of democracy.
“Let’s test their credentials. The matter needs hearing,” the bench observed, while directing the matter to be listed again on July 28. Until then, it instructed that no draft electoral rolls be published.
One of the major points of contention in the case was the exclusion of Aadhaar and voter ID cards from the ECI’s original list of 11 documents required for verification. Critics called this decision arbitrary and discriminatory, particularly because these are among the most commonly held identity documents in India.
The Court took note of this and clarified that the list of 11 documents shouldn’t be seen as exhaustive. In a significant observation, it said:
“In our opinion, it would be in the interest of justice if Aadhaar card, EPIC card (voter ID), and ration card are included. It’s still for the ECI to decide, but if they choose to exclude them, they must give reasons.”
However, the Court’s most pointed criticism was directed at the timing of the revision drive. With state elections due in November, the justices questioned the rationale behind conducting such a critical exercise now.
“The exercise is not the problem—it’s the timing,” Justice Dhulia remarked. “Why link the SIR in Bihar to the elections? Why can’t it be independent of elections?”
The bench also warned that once the final rolls are published, courts usually won’t intervene, which means those unfairly excluded might not get a chance to contest their disenfranchisement before the election.
Still, the Court acknowledged that the ECI does have a constitutional mandate to maintain the integrity of electoral rolls, and that a purging exercise to remove non-citizens is not inherently problematic.
“What they are doing is their constitutional duty. And there’s a logic to the timing—it’s the first revision after computerisation,” the Court added.
At the same time, it posed three key questions to the Election Commission:
-
Is the process adopted fair and transparent?
-
Why was the exercise scheduled so close to elections?
-
Does it affect citizens’ right to vote unfairly?
The ECI, for its part, defended the move, saying that in the past 20 years there had been large-scale additions and deletions, which may have led to duplicate or fraudulent entries in the voter list.
The opposition, especially the Congress and RJD, has accused the EC of launching what amounts to a citizenship verification campaign under a different name—something the ECI insists is not its job. Petitioners like Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Kapil Sibal argued forcefully in court that the revision exercise appeared more like a screening of citizenship, with people’s long-standing voting history no longer being considered valid proof.
“They say if you’ve voted five times before 2003, you’re fine. After 2003, even five elections don’t count unless you meet their other tests,” Singhvi pointed out.
“They don’t get to say who is a citizen. That’s not their job. The burden is on the state, not on the voter,” Sibal added.
The ECI responded that Aadhaar is not proof of citizenship, and the Court agreed—saying that matters of citizenship determination fall under the Home Ministry, not the Election Commission.
Still, the ECI insisted the Court could review the revised list before it is finalized, requesting that the revision process be allowed to continue.
“Let the exercise be completed. We’ll present the full picture before the draft is finalised,” the ECI’s counsel said.
