On July 29, 2025, the Supreme Court made its position unequivocally clear that if there is any “mass exclusion” of voters from the draft list, the Court will “step in”. This assurance came in response to the pressing concern raised by Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the ADR, that 65 lakh individuals had not submitted their enumeration forms during the SIR process.
According to the ECI’s own press note on July 27, these 65 lakh individuals are categorised as deceased electors (22 lakh or 2.83%), permanently shifted/not found voters (36 lakh or 4.59%), and voters enrolled at multiple places (7 lakh or 0.89%). Bhushan articulated the fear that these individuals would now face the arduous task of re-applying for inclusion, which could effectively disenfranchise them.
According to Live Law, during the hearing, Justice Surya Kant, emphasising the ECI’s constitutional authority, expressed confidence that it would act in accordance with the law, but nonetheless reassured the petitioners, “We are here, we will hear you”.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi also said that the January 2025 electoral list serves as the “starting point if there was no SIR”. He reiterated the Court’s commitment to intervene if the “draft list will be published by ECI. Your apprehension is 65 lakh odd voters will not feature…if there is mass exclusion, we will immediately step in. Bring 15 people saying they are alive”, as Live Law reported
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing RJD MP Manoj Jha, highlighted that the ECI “know[s] who the 65-lakh people” are, and if their names are included in the draft list, “we have no problem”. Justice Kant concurred, stating that if the “draft list is conspicuously silent,” the petitioners should bring it to the Court’s attention. The matter is now scheduled for further detailed hearings on August 12 and 13, 2025, as reported
On final day of SIR, 65 Lakh electors flagged for deletion
On July 27, the ECI declared the successful completion of the SIR’s first phase, involving enumeration forms from 7.24 crore electors out of 7.89 crore. Crucially, the ECI stated that “65 lakh voters will be excluded from the upcoming draft electoral rolls to be published on August 1.” This figure includes 22 lakh deceased, 36 lakh relocated or untraceable, and 7 lakh duplicate entries.
ECI’s press note dated 26.07.2025 can be read here
SC refused to stay ECI’s decision to publish the draft electoral rolls for Bihar on August 1, 2025
A day prior, on Monday, July 28, 2025, the Supreme Court had declined to issue a stay on the ECI’s decision to publish the draft electoral rolls for Bihar on August 1, 2025, as per the notified schedule for the SIR. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the ADR, had earnestly requested the bench to halt the notification, citing the potential “inconvenience about 4.5 crores of voters”.
He argued that once the draft list is published, excluded persons would be compelled to undertake steps to file objections and seek inclusions. However, Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing the ECI, countered that it was “only a draft list”.
Justice Kant echoed this, asserting that the Court could ultimately “strike down the entire process if any illegality was found”. Sankaranarayanan’s subsequent request for an explicit observation that the process would be “subject to the outcome of the petitions” was deemed unnecessary by Justice Kant, who stated that it was “understood”.
The core of the disagreement: documentation and inclusivity
A central point of contention revolves around the ECI’s selective acceptance of identity documents for the SIR. The Supreme Court, in its initial order on July 10, 2025, had urged the ECI to consider Aadhaar cards, Electoral Photo Identity Cards (EPIC), and ration cards as valid proofs of identity. However, the ECI, in its counter-affidavit filed on July 21, 2025, maintained its reservations.
On July 21, Sanjay Kumar, Deputy Election Commissioner, in the ECI’s counter-affidavit, argued that Aadhaar is “merely proof of identity, not citizenship or date of birth”. While Aadhaar numbers are collected optionally for identification, they are not included in the list of 11 documents considered standalone proof of eligibility under Article 326.
The ECI also cited “widespread existence of fake ration cards” as a reason for not prescribing them as one of the 11 primary eligibility documents, though EROs are “obligated to consider all documents presented, including ration cards, on a case-to-case basis”.
As for EPIC cards, the ECI stated that while their numbers are pre-filled in enumeration forms and serve as a “derivative indicator of electoral identity,” they cannot be treated as primary proof of eligibility during the “de novo preparation” of the electoral roll that the SIR entails. The ECI maintained that its order to consider Aadhaar, EPIC, and Ration Cards was for “limited purpose of identity” and that these are not considered “sufficient standalone documents for the purpose of screening of eligibility prescribed under Article 326”.
Despite the ECI’s stance, the Supreme Court verbally urged the ECI to consider at least the “statutory documents of Aadhaar and EPIC”.
In July 29 hearing, Justice Kant emphasised the “presumption of correctness with official documents” and urged the ECI to “proceed with these 2 documents,” acknowledging that “any document on the earth can be forged” but that forgery should be dealt with on a “case-to-case basis”. Justice Kant further impressed upon the ECI that instead of “en masse exclusion,” there should be, “en masse inclusion” of voters, as Live Law reported
The petitioners’ rebuttal: allegations of “Grave Fraud”
The ADR’s rejoinder (dated July 25, 2025) strongly refutes the ECI’s arguments, presenting a narrative of procedural irregularities and a significant threat to voter rights. The petitioners contend that the SIR order “does not prescribe any procedure regarding the scrutiny of enumeration forms or the verification of documents, thereby conferring upon EROs arbitrary, unbridled and excessive discretionary powers”.
They highlight the sheer volume of work assigned to a single ERO – “handling the enumeration forms of over 3 lakh individuals” – which, they argue, renders it “humanly impossible for any ERO to apply due diligence or conduct the process in a reasonable manner”.
The ADR also challenged the ECI’s rationale for initiating the SIR, which included concerns from political parties and the need for a rigorous exercise due to the last intensive revision being in 2003. The petitioners countered that electoral list updation is a continuous process, pointing to a press release from CEO Bihar dated January 7, 2025, which confirmed the successful completion of the SSR 2025, resulting in a net increase of 7,94,466 electors.
They also referred to the ECI’s own Manual on Electoral Roll (March 2023), which states that the electoral roll is continually updated, and “no suo moto deletions shall take place in an election year where elections to state assembly or House of People is due in the State concerned during 6 months period ending in the date of expiry of the term of the house”, as rejoinder read
A critical point of contention for the petitioners is the compressed timeline of the current SIR. The process, initiated on June 24, 2025, aims for final publication by September 30, 2025, covering the entire exercise in just 97 days. This, they argue, is significantly shorter than the six months taken for the 2004 intensive revision in North-East India and Jammu & Kashmir, and places “a lot of eligible voters under huge risk of disenfranchisement”.
Perhaps most damning is the “reports from the ground in Bihar” cited by the petitioners, which they claim disclose a “shocking account of the reality of the SIR process, which is absolutely arbitrary, illegal and in violation of ECI’s own order and guidelines dated 24.06.2025”. These reports allege that “enumeration forms are being mass-uploaded by BLOs without the knowledge or consent of the voters” to meet “unrealistic target[s] set by the ECI”.
Specific instances include BLOs signing forms themselves in the absence of voters, voters receiving messages about form submission despite never filling them, and forms being filled for deceased individuals. The petitioners contend that BLOs are often not providing acknowledgment receipts for collected forms, contrary to ECI guidelines. They assert that the SIR process in Bihar, as conducted, “constitutes a grave fraud on the voters of Bihar, and must be set aside”.
The ADR further challenged the ECI’s statistics on form collection, labelling them “meaningless since inclusion in draft roll holds no meaning without submission of documents”. While the ECI reported that 7.24 crore (91.69%) enumeration forms were collected out of 7.89 crore electors as of June 24, 2025, the petitioners argue that “most of these forms have been collected without documents (thereby is not duly filled)”. They highlight that the requirement of 11 specific documents, and the non-acceptance of commonly held documents like Aadhaar, EPIC, and Ration Cards, is “clearly exclusionary in nature”.
The question of citizenship and burden of proof
A fundamental legal disagreement persists regarding the ECI’s authority to determine citizenship. The ECI, in its counter-affidavit, asserted its “plenary powers under Article 324” to scrutinise eligibility, including citizenship. However, the ADR argued that this contradicts previous intensive revisions, citing the 2004 Assam revision order which explicitly stated that it is “not for the Electoral Registration Officers to determine whether a particular person is a citizen of India or not”.
The ECI’s stance that the “burden to prove citizenship falls on the person who claims the right to be registered in electoral rolls” is vehemently opposed by the petitioners. They contend that this position is “contrary to this Hon’ble Court’s judgment in Lal Babu Hussain (1995) 3 SCC 100”. In that case, the Supreme Court held that for individuals whose names are already on the electoral rolls, there is a presumption that their procedural requirements were met, and removal necessitates “a reasonable opportunity of being heard” with the basis for suspicion disclosed.
The ADR also cited the Constitution Bench judgment in Inderjit Barua v. Election Commission of India (1985) 1 SCC 21, which established that presence on an existing electoral roll is prima facie proof of citizenship, and the “burden of showing that such person was not a citizen should be on the objector”. The petitioners firmly rejected the ECI’s attempt to distinguish Lal Babu Hussain, asserting that the judgment “clearly says that presence on the existing roll has to be accorded probative value even in cases of special intensive revision”.
The petitioners’ core argument is that the SIR process “shifts the onus of citizenship proof on all existing electors in a state, whose names were registered by the ECI through a due process”. They question why the established process under the Representation of People’s Act, 1950, for deleting non-citizens based on specific complaints and evidence, has been supplanted by the requirement of additional documents and enumeration forms. Notably, the ADR pointed out that the ECI has provided “no data on number of complaints received against inclusion of foreign nationals or illegal migrants in the electoral rolls of Bihar”.
Bihar’s electoral roll revision: a critical juncture
As Bihar prepares for its Assembly elections in November 2025, the ongoing legal proceedings in the Supreme Court carry immense weight. The petitioners emphasise that the SIR, if not adequately refined with safeguards and a more inclusive approach, could arbitrarily disenfranchise a substantial portion of the eligible electorate. The ECI, conversely, maintains that the SIR is a vital exercise for ensuring the accuracy and purity of electoral rolls, especially given the absence of such an intensive revision in Bihar since 2003.
The Supreme Court’s clear declaration that it will “step in” if mass exclusion occurs, along with its repeated emphasis on “en masse inclusion” rather than “en masse exclusion.” The upcoming detailed hearings on August 12 and 13, 2025, will be pivotal in shaping the future of electoral registration in Bihar and, by extension, the integrity of its democratic process.
Related
ECI to SC: Voter ID insufficient for Bihar roll, defends citizenship verification power
Non-Electors Within Electors: ECI reports over 61 lakh potential exclusions