SC Allows SIR to Continue, Declines to Stay
On July 10, 2025, the Supreme Court of India declined to stay the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, asserting that it cannot halt a constitutional body from performing its democratic duty. A bench led by Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi underscored the court’s reluctance to second-guess the Election Commission’s (ECI) decision to conduct the revision ahead of the November state elections.
Bench Urges ECI to Embrace Inclusivity
Although refusing to intervene, the court strongly recommended that the ECI “consider” accepting additional identity documents, specifically Aadhaar cards, EPIC (voter identity) cards, and ration cards, for verification under the SIR. While non-mandatory, the directive emphasized that any decision to exclude these widely held documents must be accompanied by clear justification. The bench noted that the current list of accepted documents is illustrative rather than exhaustive, and including these IDs would serve the interests of justice.
Timing Under Scrutiny Amid Poll Pressure
One of the central points of contention was the timing of the SIR exercise, initiated just months ahead of Assembly elections in November. Petitioners argued that this hurried process could disenfranchise voters, warning that finalized roll publications would leave affected citizens without legal recourse. The court acknowledged these concerns, asserting that timing rather than the revision itself poses a risk to democratic integrity.
Lawyers Highlight Democratic Stakes
Senior litigators including Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi described the SIR as arbitrary and discriminatory. They argued that the ECI’s insistence on only 11 specific documents, excluding more commonly held IDs, transfers the burden of proving citizenship onto individuals rather than the state. This, they warned, disproportionately impacts marginalized communities in rural Bihar.
Rights Groups File Petitions Labelling Exercise Discriminatory
Civil society groups such as the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) filed petitions under Article 32. They challenged ECI’s June 24 directive as violating fundamental rights (Articles 14, 19, 21, 325, 326) and relevant electoral laws, calling the move arbitrary and warning it could disenfranchise over three crore voters, especially the poor, marginalized, and migrant communities.
ECI’s Stance on Citizenship Proofs Challenged
The Election Commission had defended its choice, stating Aadhaar is not valid proof of citizenship. The court pointed out that determining citizenship lies within the Home Ministry’s jurisdiction. It questioned why Aadhaar, used to obtain caste and other certificates, should be excluded from being a valid ID under SIR.
Court Sets Process and Hearing Timelines
The Supreme Court directed the ECI to file its counter-affidavit by July 21 and scheduled the next hearing for July 28, before the public draft of the rolls is published. It stated that the ECI may publish draft rolls only after addressing the identification document issue and ensuring procedural fairness.
Opposition Welcomes Court’s Direction
Political leaders in Bihar took the bench’s guidance as a rebuke to the ECI. Tejashwi Yadav of RJD called out the Commission for lacking transparency, accusing it of acting like a “BJP cell.” Opposition spokespersons highlighted that Aadhaar, voter ID, and ration card inclusion could safeguard marginalized communities against exclusion.
Broad Consensus for Expanded Identity Options
Former MP Asaduddin Owaisi also backed the court’s urging, calling it “a welcome order” that emphasized proper voter verification. He reminded the ECI that long-established legal precedents support using these documents and criticized any misreading of the bench’s directive.
Editorial Voices Warn Against Disenfranchisement
Opinion writers cautioned that the SIR process, if improperly executed, risks erasing eligible citizens from the voter list under the guise of administrative stringency. Criticism centred on the compressed timeline and narrow document requirements, seen as a conceivable tool for voter suppression.
Democratic Implications Extend Beyond Bihar
While this SIR process is focused on Bihar, its outcome could shape trends for electoral audits across India. The court’s insistence on inclusivity, fairness, and transparency is likely to serve as precedent for future revisions. The hearings and final judgment in July will test how the ECI balances administrative procedure with constitutional ideals.
Moving Forward: Balancing Integrity and Inclusion
The Supreme Court’s approach, allowing the SIR to continue while raising cautionary flags, signals its firm belief in the ECI’s mandate balanced against guarding democratic rights. As the court examines the legal authority, procedures, timelines, and adequacy of ID documents, the nationwide debate over voter verification versus voter exclusion gains fresh momentum.
In the coming weeks, the Bihar SIR case will determine whether the ECI accommodates broader ID options when validating voters or defends its original list. The consequences of this judicial test, straddling democratic procedure, administrative direction, and voter rights, could reverberate across India’s electoral landscape.
Leave a Reply