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.

SC order can be read here.

Related:

SC: ECI’s ‘wisdom’ on revision of electoral rolls challenged, does a disenfranchisement crisis loom over Bihar, with thousands being declared ‘‘D’ (doubtful) voters?

Bihar: Sinister move by ECI as ‘intensive’ revision of electoral roles set to exclude vast majority of legitimate voters

Bihar 2025 Election: EC drops parental birth document requirement for 4.96 crore electors and their children in Bihar

The post Bihar:  SC signals that ECI should consider Aadhaar, EPIC (Voter ID card) & Ration card for electoral roll revision  appeared first on SabrangIndia.

While the Opposition “merely protests in press conferences”, news reports on Sunday, June 29 suggest that the ECI is riding roughshod over all concerns and going ahead anyway!

This article by an expert, associated with Vote for Democracy asks:

• Is this move not a flagrant breach of Election Law?
• Is it move not part of a nefarious design meant to deal a serious blow to our election system and the Universal Right to Franchise?

This article further demands:

Has CEC Gyaneshwar Kumar been appointed to:

• Utterly violate Clause 19 of the Representation of Peoples’ Act 1950 (hereinafter called RP ACT 1950)?
• To violate the RP ACT 1950 selectively against the poor, unlettered, homeless property-less, deprived citizenry?
• To also surreptitiously CAA 2019 & the dangerous NRC?

Does the CEC have the Constitutional Authority under Law:

• To define and judge the citizenship rights?
• To usurp the powers of the Parliament?

In June 24, in a sudden move just months before the forthcoming 2025 Bihar Vidhan Sabha Elections, the ECI under the present CEC has woken up to a special revision of electoral rolls, a process that has to be undertaken strictly in accordance with election law (Representation of People’s Act, 1951) and of course the Constitution.

This unilaterally announced and fundamentally flawed decision of the ECI must be seen in the context of a series of data denials of information to the opposition parties and the general public. Under Articles 324-326 of the Indian Constitution, all data preserved by the ECI is in good faith of the “people of India” and not under the control of a government then in power. The ECI has, in recent months undemocratically changed its own rules not to make available videography of polling booths post-closing time and has, been obdurately refusing to make available to the Opposition and public previous Electoral Roles (to enable detection of mass deletions and mass exclusions) in data which is in a readable and searchable format,

In this background of complete breakdown of trust and communication between the people themselves, Opposition parties and the ECI, the ECI issues this sudden diktat on June 24, 2025. Using a newly coined and specially designed term, ‘Special Intensive Revision’ of Electoral Rolls, vide its No. 23/ESR/2025 dated June 24, 2025—an exercise that finds no legitimacy in either Article 324 of the Constitution of India nor in the Representation of Peoples’ Act 1950, nor either in the Electors Registration Rules 1960.

With these usurped powers, the ECI has issued “instructions dated June 24, 2024, addressed to the Chief Electoral Officer Bihar, Patna directing therein the ‘Special Intensive Revision’ of Electoral Rolls, by July 26, 2025.” While claiming that the exercise has been necessitated because of “new demographic factors that have emerged in recent times”, the ECI’s decisions/actions do not find any objective basis.

The ECI has thereby directed the CEO Bihar to perform this self-appointed duty to decide as to whether each one of the voters is an Indian citizen or not, an exercise that the ECI with well delineated powers under the Constitution and the RPA-1950 is simply not authorised to do.

The ECI has further delegated this onerous task to the Block Level Officers (BLOs) who are, usually, Class 3 employees and cannot be authorised to decide on the citizenship of all the electors. No law empowers them to do so, especially those electors who have been registered to vote over several decades. Which means those voters who have enjoyed the constitutional right to universal adult franchise. As a result of this step, this scrutiny of Bihar voters who today touch 80 million –and increase from 77.26 million in the 2024 Lok Sabha (last June) —needs to be undertaken in just over a month!!! Will this process — hastily announced and compressed for completion in less than four weeks– moreover, one that has no basis in law or the Constitution be undertaken without the fundamental violation of Registration of Electors Rule 1960—since the legally mandate and mandatory time required for each step of this task has simply been overlooked, deliberately?

Enormity of the new task to be accomplished in one month

STATE WISE NUMBER OF ELECTORS – BIHAR

Source: https://www.eci.gov.in/general-election-to-loksabha-2024-statistical-reports

Under which Law does the ECI claims to draw the powers for such a draconian task?

The ECI in its directive letters No. 23/2025-ERS (Vol. II) dated June 24, 2025 (ibid) has claimed that it is empowered to do so under Article 324 of the Constitution of India and section 21 of the Representation of People, Act, 1950.

Let us examine the said provisions.

Article 324 in Constitution of India

324. Superintendence, direction and control of elections to be vested in an Election Commission

(1) The superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to Parliament and to the Legislature of every State and of elections to the offices of President and Vice-President held under this Constitution shall be vested in a Commission (referred to in this Constitution as the Election Commission).

The ECI has been empowered to, ‘The superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls’, but not to decide as to whether one is a citizen of India or not.

This is because there is a separate Citizenship Act, 1955 and Indian Citizenship is decided as per provisions of Article 5 to 11 of the Constitution of India.

Article 11 reads as under: Parliament to regulate the Right of Citizenship by law.

Therefore, the June 24, “directives” of the Commission are unconstitutional and violative of the provisions of the articles related to Citizenship. Moreover, the ECI is unauthorisedly and illegally assuming the powers of Parliament, especially when it is seeking certain documentary evidence from any persons who are not included in the electoral roles of 2003 and are born before July 1, 1987 in as much as:

A person most deprived being homeless, unlettered, having no identity card, no land, no permanent residence certificate issued by Government, no passport, no pension payment order as he she does draw any service pension, issued before July 1, 1987 and who has not been included in the electors list earlier before 2003, either because the person is a minor, or because of the dereliction of duty by the ECI will be severely impacted.

In order to remove such arbitrariness, discrimination, favouritism, deprivation and chaos, keeping in view the actual conditions of the country provisions have been made under the RPA Act 1950 and The Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, to which we shall refer a little later.

First, the Clause 21 of the Representation of People’s Act, 1950:

The said Clause 21 reads as under:

[21. Preparation and revision of electoral rolls. — (1) The electoral roll for each constituency shall be prepared in the prescribed manner by reference to the qualifying date and shall come into force immediately upon its final publication in accordance with the rules made under this Act.

2[(2) the said electoral roll—

(a) shall, unless otherwise directed by the Election Commission for reasons to be recorded in writing, be revised in the prescribed manner by reference to the qualifying date—

As such in this clause 21 (1) one needs to concentrate on following mandate of the law to the ECI:

i) shall be prepared in the prescribed manner

ii) In accordance with the rules made under this Act.

ECI cannot and should not travel beyond the four walls by way of unauthorised outreach activities rather should concentrate on its sacred duty of conduction elections in a fair, transparent and absolutely impartial manner.

Consequently, it is clear that the instructions issued by the ECI, are patent violation of the provision of clause 21(1) as this intended action will nullify all the existing roles containing all electors that have been in effect –granting Universal Adult Franchise–in 2004, 2009, 2014, 2019 and the 2024 Lok Sabha elections apart from the elections to the Bihar state legislature during this long period of over two decades.

Further, this clause 21 of the RPA Act, 1950 is subordinate to the umbrella Clause 15 which reads as under:

15. Electoral roll for every constituency. —For every constituency there shall be an electoral roll which shall be prepared in accordance with the provisions of this Act under the superintendence, direction and control of the Election Commission.

Therefore, Clause 15 makes it patently clear that an electoral roll which shall be prepared in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Possibly deliberately and with mala fide intent, the ECI has failed or refused to note is that all provisions for the ‘preparation of electoral rolls’ are to be read together, not just Clause 21 selectively.

There is no denying the fact that the ECI is empowered to have the superintendence, direction and control of the Election Commission for preparation of the electoral rolls but it is of a great significance that the ECI is duty bound to accomplish the task in accordance with the provisions of this ACT 1950, nothing more, nothing less.

Let us now glance at the provisions of the Act, ibid wherein, under Clause 19, the conditions for the registration of an elector are codified which the ECI has miserably failed to observe/maintain.

The same are reproduced here as under:

4 [19. Conditions of registration. —Subject to the foregoing provisions of this Part, every person who —

(a) Is not less than [eighteen years] of age on the qualifying date, and

(b) is ordinarily resident in a constituency,

shall be entitled to be registered in the electoral roll for that constituency.]

It is crystal clear that there are only two conditions required for any person to get registered as an elector namely the person should be of 18 years or more and should be ordinarily residing in the constituency. Further it is the clear mandate given to the ECI and the inherent right of the person that the person shall be registered in the electoral rolls. From the above provisions it is obvious that the ECI has no right to demand the documents as enumerated in its order from each and every elector who is was not registered in 2003. Worse, merely owning a house or a property in an area does not make one an ordinarily residing citizen as defined under Clause 20 of the rules Ibid which is as under:

20. Meaning of “ordinarily resident”. —6[(1) A person shall not be deemed to be ordinarily resident in a constituency on the ground only that he owns, or is in possession of, a dwelling house therein.

(1A) A person absenting himself temporarily from his place of ordinary residence shall not by reason thereof cease to be ordinarily resident therein.

Parliament, the law-making body—legislature– has been conscious of the need to weed out the wrongly registered voters (electors) and the provision to address this malady is contained under Clause 16 of the RPA Act 1950 and the same is as under:

16. Disqualifications for registration in an electoral roll. — (1) A person shall be disqualified for registration in an electoral roll if he—

(a) is not a citizen of India; or

(b) is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent court; or

(c) is for the time being disqualified from voting under the provisions of any law relating to corrupt 1*** practices and other offences in connection with elections.

The ECI’s unconstitutional and bombastic claim that it will seek a certificate of birth under Sub-clause(a) of Clause 16 is preposterous. Will the ECI then also seek a certificate of being sound mind as provided under subclause (b)of the Clause ibid.

What do the Rules for registration prescribe for getting registered as an elector?

Under Rule 13(1) of the Registration of Electors Rules 1960, it is provided that a person has to submit an application in form No. 6. There is no distinction provided in Rule 13 (1) of the Rules between voters registered in 2003 or thereafter at any time. How can therefore the ECI make conditions that are contrary to this mandate?

The form also does not prescribe for the need to produce any certificates as has recently been announced by the ECI arbitrarily.

Under the 1960 Rules, there is a further provision that allows for correction in electoral roles—a person has to apply in form No. 8. To raise any objection for a wrongful or ‘fake’ inclusion of voters, an application has to be moved in Form No. 7. There is also a punishment prescribed for any false declaration made and hence the present architect newly framed by ECI smacks of a move uncalled for.

Time lines for the deletion of name as per instructions issued by the ECI vide No. 23/INST/2023-ERS Dated August 11, 2023

An Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) is not empowered to undertake this task, much less the BLO!

The Commission taking all aspects into consideration, including with a view to wrongful deletion during election year has directed that ERO shall not resort to a deletion without a form 7 and without following due process of verification as laid down in para 4 of the above said instructions. The due process of verification as laid down and prescribed in para 6 (ii) (iii) of the above instructions, is as under:

An application has to be submitted by an Objector on the prescribed form No. 7 for deletion of any name, supported by a declaration that the information filled therein is not false and a receipt is to be issued against the receipt of the application, there is a punitive clause for false entries as under:

Note. – Any person who makes a statement or declaration which is false and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, is punishable under section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (43 of 1950)

1. The election authority has to serve a registered notice to the concerned elector by registered post and the receipt of the delivery of the notice is to be kept in record
2. The person served the notice is supposed to reply with in 15 days after the issuance of the notice.
3. If no reply is received then the election authority asks the BLO to conduct a visit to the spot and makes all the records of time and date of visit, the person visiting and the person and exact place visited, the enquiries conducted and submit it to the competent authority who thereafter on expiry of further 15 days issues orders for the deletion.

The ECI– in its own wisdom– has prescribed following documents for the ‘special intensive revision’, oblivious of the ground realities or despite being aware of the same.

• any identity card
• pension payment order,
• identity card or document issued in India by government before June 1, 1987
• birth certificate issued by the competent authority,
• passport,
• matriculation certificates,
• permanent residence certificate issued by competent state authority and
• any land or house allotment certificate by government, among others.

Ground realities 

1. To seek a birth certificate of a person born before 1987 and also of his parents is nothing but a move calculated for exclusion. This also smacks of an indirect move to bring in the controverted National Register of Citizens (NRC), under challenge in the Supreme Court. Basically, this is also contrary to the law of the land in as much as the registration of births and deaths Act came into existence only in 1969 as under:

“The Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (Act No. 18 of 1969) [31st May 1969] An Act to provide for the regulation of registration of births and deaths and for matters connected therewith”.

2. Those who are born before July 1, 1987 and were registered as voters after 2003 cannot be denied their right as Indian citizen by the ECI, without proceedings conducted as per law by the competent authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955, to decide the citizenship issue.

3. Civil registration of births and deaths until 2011 (when the last Census was conducted) were at only 82.4% and 66.4% respectively. How then can we imagine that every legitimate birth and death of both father and mother of those born on or before July 1, 1987 will have been recorded through a birth certificate?

4. Even after making birth registration mandatory in 2023, as on March 11,2025 still 10 % of Indian births go unregistered.

5. The National Family Health Survey-3 conducted from December 2005 to August 2006, shows only 6.3% birth registrations in Bihar, 7.3% in UP, 9.5% in Jharkhand and 16.4% in Rajasthan while the national figure for this was 41.4%, and birth certificates granted only for 27.1% of the population.

6. In 199, in India only 52.1% population was able to read and write, around half of the population is totally unlettered. The figures for Bihar show the literacy rate at only 38.48% and among females only 22.89%. To go further, in 2001 only 87,60,589 out of 8,29,98,509 persons i.e., a poor 55% of the people had passed their Std X examinations making the ECI’s demand of a matriculation certificate a cruel joke.

7. As of December 31, 2023, 6.5 percent (92,624,661) of Indian citizens possessed a valid passport; now CEC Mr. Gyaneshwar is on to deny them their voting rights on grounds of not having a passport!

8. Between 2019 to 2023 the total number of passports issued in Bihar are 20,12,357, that is catering to around 1.5% population. (Parbhat Khabar digital Bihar May 17, 2025 6.05am)

9. 4% population does not possess own houses per 2011 census, but Mr. Gyaneshwar wants them to show papers of own house otherwise lose electoral rights.

10. gov.in › images › AADHAAR_NUMBERS_ENGLISHGOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF ELECTRONICS AND INFORMATION …As per RGI data, the total projected population (2022) of India is 137.30 crore (approx.). As on June 30, 2022, a total of 133.586 crore Aadhaar cards have been generated. Around 4 crores of Indians have not got even an Aadhaar card.

Under these circumstances, one wonders as to why- instead of using the scant available resources for conducting a fair impartial and transparent just elections in the state of Bihar, the ECI is undertaking an unlawful and unconstitutional electoral revision exercise, hell bent in punishing the poor and hapless who enjoys one right above all, the right to universal adult franchise.

(The author, one of the experts associated with Vote for Democracy is also Former Dean, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Panjab University, Chandigarh)

Related:

Who orchestrated APPs failures, the FM and her ex-FS or the ECI?

SABRANGINDIA EXCLUSIVE: Election 2024, ECI: Technical glitch, gross negligence or deliberate manipulation?

The post Bihar: Sinister move by ECI as ‘intensive’ revision of electoral roles set to exclude vast majority of legitimate voters appeared first on SabrangIndia.