In a mid-vacation hearing today on the ongoing SIR process in Bihar, the SC, while refraining from imposing an interim stay on the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) “Special Intensive Revision” (SIR) of Bihar’s electoral rolls, delivered an indication in its order that the ECI must consider Aadhaar cards, Electoral Photo Identity Cards (EPIC), and Ration cards as valid documents for this exercise of establishing identity of voters. The bench, comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi, while hearing a batch of petitions including the petition filed by Association for Democratic Reforms and Ors. v. Election Commission of India and connected matters [W.P. (C) No. 640/2025], RJD Member of Parliament (MP), Manoj Jha among several others also commented that the ECI’s existing list of 11 accepted documents is “not exhaustive” and must be expanded to ensure that no eligible voter is inadvertently disenfranchised.
The order comes amidst a heated legal and political debate surrounding the ECI’s stringent revision process, initiated just months before the Bihar Assembly elections in November 2025. Petitioners, represented by a formidable legal team, argued that the current guidelines are arbitrary, discriminatory, and threaten the fundamental right to vote for millions. What is being debated and questioned is whether, the ECI, under political pressure, is using the SIR to determine a person’s citizenship. The next date for hearing will now be July 28.
Special Intensive Revision: an unprecedented exercise without legal basis
The petitioners, led by Senior Advocates Gopal Sankarnarayanan (for ADR), Kapil Sibal (for RJD MP Manoj Jha), Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Shadan Farasat, and Vrinda Grover, launched a multi-pronged argument on the ECI’s impugned exercise.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan set the tone by questioning the very legality of the “Special Intensive Revision.” He argued, “What is permitted under the Act of 1950 and the registration of electors rules is two types of revisions. Intensive revision and summary revision.” He stressed that this “special intensive revision,” covering an astonishing 7.9 crore people in Bihar, is a “de novo exercise” being undertaken “for the first time in the history of India” and lacks any explicit backing in law. Sankarnarayanan pointed out the inherent contradiction in the ECI’s approach, which, despite annual summary revisions in other states, has now embarked on this “special” drive with a strict 30-day timeline.
Arbitrary distinctions and discriminatory safeguards
A key grievance raised by Sankarnarayanan was the arbitrary differentiation between voters.
“They gave the clarification that if you are in the 2003 roll then you don’t have to submit the documents but you still have to submit a fresh form. If you don’t submit that fresh form you are out of the electoral roll,” he explained.
This, he argued, created an “artificial distinction which the law doesn’t permit,” particularly by presuming citizenship for pre-2003 voters while demanding extensive documentation from those enrolled later, even if they had voted in multiple elections. The petitioners also highlighted discriminatory “safeguards” that exempted certain classes like “members of the judiciary and people proficient in arts, people who are great in sports etc.,” allowing officials to collect forms from their homes, while ordinary citizens faced stringent requirements.
The burden of proof and citizenship Screening
The core of the petitioners’ concern revolved around the shifting of the burden of proving citizenship from the state to the individual voter. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal strongly argued, “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.” Besides, the ECI is a constitutional body mandated to conduct, oversee free and fair elections, including ensuring every person votes and those who are not do not; however it is not the competent authority to decide citizenship.
Sibal highlighted the impracticality for many citizens, especially migrants and the poor, to furnish the required documents, citing a Bihar government survey showing low possession rates for passports (2.5%) and matriculation certificates (14.71%). Sibal expressed dismay at the exclusion of Aadhaar, MNREGA cards, and even birth certificates, questioning, “Where will I get birth certificate of parents? This exercise is beyond the scope of Election Commission of India completely.”
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi stated that “this is absolutely an exercise of doing citizenship screening,” which falls under a different legal procedure and outside the ECI’s direct purview. He pointedly questioned the ECI’s stance on Aadhaar: “The entire country is going mad after Aadhaar and then ECI says that Aadhaar will not be taken.” Advocate Vrinda Grover further emphasised that this “citizenship screening… is disproportionately targeting the poor, the migrants. Article 14 squarely comes in here.”
Threat to democratic principles
The overarching concern for the petitioners was the potential for mass disenfranchisement and its corrosive effect on democratic principles. Singhvi powerfully articulated, “Disenfranchising even one eligible voter hits level playing field, that hits democracy and that directly hits basic structure.”
The timing of the exercise, so close to the Bihar Assembly elections, also raised eyebrows, with Singhvi suggesting it “should be delinked with an impending election.”
ECI’s Defence: Constitutional mandate and statutory power
Representing the ECI, Senior Advocates Rakesh Dwivedi, K.K. Venugopal, and Maninder Singh, defended the revision as a necessary exercise to maintain the purity and accuracy of the electoral rolls.
Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi asserted the ECI’s constitutional authority under Article 324 and statutory power under Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, to conduct such revisions. He argued that the ECI “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.”
He cited data indicating significant changes in the electoral roll, including 1.1 crore deaths and 70 lakh migrations, as necessitating an intensive revision.
Assurances of due process and hearings
A critical assurance from Dwivedi was that all the procedure will be followed all principles of natural justice will be followed. When pressed by Justice Dhulia on whether hearings on objections (in case of exclusion) would be granted, Dwivedi affirmed, “of course.” He clarified that pre-filled forms based on the January 2025 electoral roll are being distributed, and signatures are being collected door-to-door, implying that existing voters are not being ignored. He assured that only after all application forms are received would the stage of objections and claims begin, at which point Aadhaar could be used if an identity objection is raised.
Aadhaar as proof of identity, not citizenship
On the contentious issue of Aadhaar, Dwivedi initially clarified that “It is not a proof of certain things. It is only proof of identity.” He maintained that Aadhaar, while widely prevalent, does not automatically confer citizenship, as it can be issued to all residents. However, he also stated that the list of 11 documents was “not exhaustive,” which allowed the bench to question why Aadhaar, a document that often forms the basis for other listed documents like caste certificates, was excluded. His flip-flop on ration cards—initially conceding the list was non-exhaustive, then saying, “We will not accept ration card”—drew a sharp observation from the bench.
Bench’s observations and directives: a pragmatic approach
The two-judge bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi engaged actively with both sides, making several important observations.
Questioning the timing and purpose
Justice Bagchi repeatedly questioned the ECI on the timing of the exercise while saying that, “that’s why the question is why you are making this exercise relatable to an election coming in November. If it is an exercise that can be independent of the election for the whole of the country.”
Justice Dhulia concurred, remarking, “If you are to check citizenship under the SIR of electoral rolls in Bihar, then you should have acted early; it is a bit late.” He further observed, “The right to vote… there is no question that this issue is an important issue and goes through the very root of democracy.”
Focus on identity vs. citizenship
The bench noted the ECI’s conflicting stance on documents. Justice Bagchi highlighted, “all the documents you have listed are related to identity. The entire exercise is about identity.” He pressed Dwivedi that “Why citizenship? Only identity. None of these illustrative documents that you listed or by themselves proof of citizenship.”
Justice Dhulia pointedly remarked, “A document that is the basis of so many other documents you are not allowing,” referring to Aadhaar.
Practicality and perception
Justice Dhulia also raised practical concerns about the short timeline and the potential for inadvertent omissions, stating, “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.” He also highlighted the “matter of perception” created by the ECI’s actions.
No stay, but clear observations
Despite the petitioners’ strong arguments, the Supreme Court opted not to grant an interim stay at this juncture, primarily because the draft electoral roll is scheduled for publication only on August 1, 2025, and the matter is listed for further hearing before that date. This pragmatic decision allows the ECI to continue its data collection while ensuring judicial oversight.
The Court’s Order explicitly stated that “Mr. Dwivedi submits that the list of 11 documents is not exhaustive as the order June indicates then 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 ration card.”
The order further specified that a counter-affidavit from the ECI must be filed within one week, and any rejoinder before July 28, 2025, the date of the next hearing. The Court acknowledged the three key points of challenge; the ECI’s power to conduct the SIR, the procedure adopted, and the timeline.
However, the Supreme Court’s clear directive marks a significant development in the Bihar electoral roll controversy. While the ECI avoided an immediate stay, the implicit message is that the purity of electoral rolls cannot come at the cost of excluding genuine voters through overly restrictive or legally ambiguous processes. The onus is now on the ECI to demonstrate its willingness to incorporate the Court’s suggestions and address the petitioners’ concerns regarding fundamental rights. The July 28 hearing promises to be a crucial juncture, determining not only the fate of Bihar’s electoral rolls but also setting a precedent for future revisions across the nation, especially as elections approach.
Related: