SC hearing on Bihar Electoral Rolls: The Supreme Court on Thursday backed the petitioners and asked the Election Commission to consider Aadhaar Card, Voter ID, and Ration Card as valid documents for the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter lists in Bihar. The court also raised concerns about the timing of this exercise, as elections are due in the state later this year.
During the hearing, Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi asked the EC to explain whether it has the power to carry out such a revision, the process it is using, and why it is being done now. However, the court also told the petitioners not to describe the exercise as “artificial” or “imaginary.”
Hailing SC’s comments, advocate Prashant Bhushan took to X and wrote, “Kudos to the SC for bestowing serious attention to the issue of special Intensive revision of the electoral rolls of Bihar.” He added that the EC was at the risk of excluding a large number of voters by demanding documents like birth certificates, which many people don’t have. “The SC has opined that the EC should also consider Ration cards, Aadhaar cards and voters Identity cards,” Bhushan noted.
Key highlights from SC’s hearing on Bihar’s electoral roll list
The SC bench, during the hearing said that there is nothing wrong with updating the voter list to remove non-citizens, but doing such a large and mandatory revision just months before elections could hurt real voters. They warned that some eligible citizens might lose their chance to vote because they may not be able to finish the appeal process in time.
Senior lawyers Kapil Sibal, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who were representing the petitioners, said the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) was unfair and badly timed. Sankaranarayanan said the main legal problem is that the burden of proof is now on voters to show they are citizens, which should not be the case. Singhvi said removing voters in this way can affect fairness in elections.
The Centre argued that it was too early for the court to step in, but the Supreme Court pointed out that once the voter list is ready, elections could be announced soon after, and once that happens, courts usually don’t interfere.
Sibal also noted that the process is unfair because if someone doesn’t fill out the required form, they are simply told they can’t vote. Justice Dhulia responded that it is the Election Commission’s job to make sure only citizens vote. Sibal replied that it’s not the voter’s job to prove they are a citizen. If the Election Commission wants to remove a name from the list, they should first have documents showing the person is not a citizen.
‘Process can’t be random’: Singhvi argues
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that even if one assumes—without agreeing—that the Election Commission of India (ECI) has the power to check a voter’s citizenship, there is a separate legal process for doing so. He said that it can’t be done randomly or without proper steps. He also pointed out the irony that while the whole country heavily relies on Aadhaar for identity verification, the ECI has decided not to accept Aadhaar as valid proof for the voter list revision. Singhvi strongly criticised the move, saying that this entire exercise seems more like a hidden attempt to screen people based on their citizenship.
‘No intent to exclude anybody from the voter list unless..’
Advocate Dwivedi explained that the ECI has complete authority and control over the preparation and updating of the electoral rolls. He said that, over time, revisions are necessary to keep the voter list accurate. The only issue, he added, is how this power is being used. Justice Dhulia responded by pointing out that what the ECI is currently doing doesn’t fall under the usual “summary revision” or “intensive revision” but is being called a “special intensive revision,” which is not mentioned in the rules. He also noted that this process seems to be focusing on checking citizenship. Dwivedi replied that the Election Commission is a constitutional body that directly interacts with voters and has no intention of removing anyone from the voter list unless the law clearly requires it to do so.
‘You have to answer’: Dhulia tells ECI advocate Rakesh Dwivedi
When Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi backed ECI, Justice Dhulia doubled down on the significance of the issue. “There is no question that this issue is an important issue and goes through the very root of democracy. The right to vote.” Dhulia said that the petitioners are not only challenging ECI’s powers but also challenging the procedure and timing.
‘This exercise is beyond the scope of ECI completely’: Sibal
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal argued that anyone born in India after 1950 is legally considered a citizen. If someone wants to question that, they must first provide proof or information showing the person is not a citizen. He added that this new voter list revision also unfairly affects migrants, as they are being asked to come back to their home state just to fill out a form. He questioned how people are expected to get documents like their parents’ birth certificates, especially when such records may not even exist. Sibal firmly said that this entire process goes beyond what the Election Commission of India is allowed to do.
‘Entire country is going mad after Aadhar and then ECI says that Aadhar will not be taken’: Singhvi
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that disenfranchising of a single eligible voter also affects the level playing field, which in turn affects the democracy. He added that it is a direct hit to the basic structure. The bench agreed saying, “We are with you on that.”
Kapil Sibal calls out ‘unfair practice’
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal argued that the process is unfair because it places the burden on voters. He said that if someone fails to fill out a form, they are being told they won’t be allowed to vote, which is not reasonable. In response, Justice Dhulia said that the Election Commission’s duty is to make sure only qualified people are allowed to vote, and that includes checking if someone is a citizen, since only citizens have the right to vote. Sibal replied that it is not the voter’s responsibility to prove their citizenship. Instead, if the authorities want to remove someone from the voter list, they must first have proof or documents showing that the person is not a citizen.
‘Nothing wrong in you purging electoral rolls..’: Bench
The bench said that removing someone already on the 2025 voter list would force them to go through a long appeal process, which could lead to them missing the chance to vote in the upcoming election. The judges noted there is nothing wrong with cleaning the voter list to remove non-citizens, but doing such an intensive process just a few months before an election can harm genuine voters. They warned that the timing could result in eligible citizens losing their right to vote simply because they couldn’t complete the appeal process in time.
ECI vs Bench
ECI counsel said that the Aadhar card cannot be used as proof of citizenship, to which the bench replied that this was a completely different issue and that it’s Home Ministry’s prerogative. Quoting the RP act, the ECI panel said that one has to be a citizen to vote. The bench replied saying, “Isn’t it too late now for that?”
‘Don’t stretch it so much’: Justice Dhulia tells senior advocate Sankarnarayanan
The advocate said, “All members of judiciary public representative prominent personalities from fields of arts culture journalism sports and public services etc…. there cannot be any categorisation like this election commission is doing. Every vote is supposed to be equal so where is the question of this guideline.” Slamming the argument Justice Dhulia said, “don’t stretch it so far.” He added that there is a practicality involved in ECI’s move and that they are doing this so that these people are already verified. “Where does Article 14 come here? Be on the Highway. Main main point batao,” Dhulia said.
Advocate argues ‘Aadhar proof of authentication for someone who is already on the roll’
During the hearing, Justice Bagchi pointed out that subsection 3 of Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act (RoPA) allows the Election Commission to conduct a special revision of the electoral roll in a manner it deems appropriate. In response, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan referred to an amendment in the Act, which permits the use of Aadhaar numbers issued by UIDAI as valid identification.
Justice Bagchi then asked if Sankarnarayanan’s argument was that, under the main law, Aadhaar is accepted as valid ID proof, and removing it from the list of acceptable documents goes against the intent of the Act. Sankarnarayanan agreed with this interpretation.
He clarified that he was not saying Aadhaar proves citizenship for someone who is not yet on the voter list. However, for people already registered, Aadhaar should serve as valid authentication of their identity. He questioned the need to remove such voters, especially when 7.9 crore people have been voting regularly and are already part of the electoral roll. According to him, the law does not allow for their removal without valid reasons.
‘You are not challenging the power of the ECI?’: Dhulia asks
During the hearing, Justice Dhulia asked if the petitioners were challenging the powers of the ECI. Advocate Sankarnarayanan clarified that he was not questioning the ECI’s authority, but rather the way the revision of the electoral rolls was being carried out. He argued that while the ECI does have the power to conduct such revisions, it must follow the proper legal process as laid out in the law. Justice Dhulia responded by saying that the Commission was following the procedure, but Sankarnarayanan disagreed, saying firmly that the ECI was not doing it in the legally prescribed manner.
Justice Dhulia says ‘there’s practicality involved’ in EC’s move
Justice Dhulia started by asking, “They are doing what is provided in the Constitution, right? So you can’t say that they are doing what they are not supposed to?”
Sr. Adv. Sankarnarayanan: They are doing what they are not allowed to do. There are four types of violations in this process.
The advocate argued that the process is unfair and biased. He said he would show how the guidelines exclude certain groups from the revision process, which makes it discriminatory. He added that the entire exercise has no basis in law.
Sankarnarayanan explained that people who were on the voter list before 2003 are only asked to submit a form, while others must go through a more difficult process. He said this creates an unfair difference which the law does not allow.
Justice Dhulia: “But there is a practicality involved. They fixed the date because it was the first time after computerisation. So there is a logic. You can demolish it but you cannot say that there is no logic.”
Sankarnarayanan responded that the authorities assume voters listed before 2003 are citizens, but for those added after 2003, even if they have voted multiple times, they are not given the same benefit.
‘This is completely discriminatory,’ argues Senior Advocate Sankarnarayanan
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan told the Supreme Court that under the existing law—the Representation of the People Act, 1950—there are only two types of voter list updates allowed: an intensive revision and a summary revision. He said that the current process in Bihar, called a “special intensive revision,” does not exist in the law or the rules and is being carried out for the first time in India’s history.
He explained that this process is being applied to nearly 7.9 crore voters in Bihar with a strict 30-day deadline. During this time, voters must submit a new form and provide one of only 11 accepted documents to prove citizenship. Voter ID cards are not being accepted, and in some cases, even documents proving the citizenship of one’s parents are being asked.
Sankarnarayanan added that even those already on the 2003 voter list must still fill out the new form, or they risk being removed from the roll.
He also pointed out that the process is unfair because it treats some groups, like judges or athletes, differently by allowing officials to visit their homes to collect documents, while ordinary citizens have to go through a more difficult process.