The Supreme Court has refused to stay the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar but raised serious concerns about its timing and execution ahead of the upcoming Assembly elections in November 2025. A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi made several important observations during the hearing of multiple petitions challenging the Election Commission of India's (ECI) decision.
Here are the key highlights and implications:
⚖️ Supreme Court’s Stance
-
No Stay on SIR: The Court did not pause the SIR exercise, allowing the Election Commission to continue, but barred publication of the draft list for now.
-
Hearing Scheduled: Final hearing is set for July 28.
-
Timing Questioned: The Court criticized the proximity of the revision to the Assembly elections, questioning why it was being linked to the polls and not conducted independently.
-
Due Process Emphasized: The judges stressed that if people are removed from the rolls, they must have a chance to challenge it before elections. Once final rolls are published, courts traditionally do not intervene.
📄 On Document Validity
-
The ECI had initially listed 11 documents for verification, excluding Aadhaar, EPIC (voter ID), and ration card.
-
The Court said the list is not exhaustive, and:
"In the interest of justice, Aadhaar, EPIC, and ration card should be considered valid documents."
-
However, it left the final decision to the ECI, stating that if the Commission excludes them, it must provide reasons.
🪪 Citizenship and Aadhaar Debate
-
Petitioners, including senior advocates Abhishek Singhvi and Kapil Sibal, argued the revision amounted to citizenship screening, which is beyond the ECI's mandate.
-
Sibal questioned: “Who is the ECI to declare me a citizen or not?”
-
Singhvi said even long-term voters were now being doubted based on arbitrary cutoffs post-2003.
-
-
The ECI argued Aadhaar is not proof of citizenship, which the Court acknowledged as correct, stating the issue of citizenship falls under the Home Ministry’s jurisdiction, not the ECI’s.
🗳️ ECI’s Argument
-
Claimed that duplicate entries had accumulated due to repeated additions/deletions over 20 years.
-
Stated the timing was due to this being the first major exercise after computerisation.
-
Asked the Court to let the revision proceed, promising to submit the revised list for judicial review before finalisation.
🧾 Three Questions the SC Posed to the ECI:
-
Is the process adopted fair and constitutionally valid?
-
Why is the timing so close to elections?
-
Does the revision impact citizens’ fundamental right to vote without due opportunity for redress?
🧩 Political & Legal Significance
-
The move has been strongly criticized by Congress and RJD, who claim it may be aimed at selectively disenfranchising voters.
-
The Court acknowledged the importance of a clean electoral roll, but underscored the balance between integrity and disenfranchisement.
This case is shaping up to be a landmark in defining the scope of the ECI’s powers, especially in matters touching upon citizenship verification and electoral roll integrity close to elections. The outcome of the July 28 hearing could have far-reaching consequences for election processes across India.
