Bihar Voter Roll Revision: SC Flags Exclusion, Demands Proof Reforms
How did your country report this? Share your view in the comments.
Diverging Reports Breakdown
SC allows Bihar voter list revision, tells ECI to consider Aadhaar, voter ID and ration card as valid proof
Supreme Court allowed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to carry out its Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar. The judges questioned why the revision was being held just months before the Bihar Assembly elections, due in November 2025. A major issue raised by the petitioners was the non-inclusion of Aadhaar, voter ID (EPIC) and ration cards among the 11 documents listed for the verification process. The court said the ECI’s list was not final and directed the Commission to consider including these commonly held documents. The ECI has been asked to file a detailed response by July 21, and the matter will be heard again on July 28. Over three crore voters in Bihar could fail to meet these new document criteria and risk being removed from the voter list, say petitioners. The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and several opposition leaders called these rules unrealistic, especially in Bihar where many poor voters lack formal documentation.
SIR not stayed, but court flags timing
The bench, led by Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi, refused to stop the exercise. However, the judges questioned why the revision was being held just months before the Bihar Assembly elections, due in November 2025.
“The exercise is not the problem, the timing is,” Justice Dhulia observed. “Why link the SIR to elections? Once the electoral roll is finalised, there’s no way to challenge exclusion. That’s a real concern,” he said.
The bench also stressed that the Election Commission must ensure the process does not lead to the removal of genuine voters, particularly when many won’t have access to detailed documents.
Aadhaar, EPIC and ration card should be considered, says SC
A major issue raised by the petitioners was the non-inclusion of Aadhaar, voter ID (EPIC) and ration cards among the 11 documents listed for the verification process.
The court said the ECI’s list was not final and directed the Commission to consider including these commonly held documents.
“Aadhaar has been accepted for various government purposes. Why not here?” the bench asked.
“If the Commission doesn’t accept them, it must give clear reasons,” the court added.
Scroll to load tweet…
ECI explains its stand, asked to reply by July 21
The Election Commission, represented by senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, said it was following legal provisions and was ‘not discriminating’. The court accepted that the ECI had constitutional powers but said the procedure and timing must also be just. The bench framed three questions for consideration:
Does the ECI have the powers to conduct the SIR?
Is the current procedure lawful and fair?
Is the timeline too short ahead of elections?
The ECI has been asked to file a detailed response by July 21, and the matter will be heard again on July 28.
Voter document rules challenged as unfair
The SIR guidelines, issued by the ECI on June 24, require people not on the 2003 electoral roll to submit documents proving citizenship. Those born after December 2004 must also submit citizenship documents of both parents. If a parent is a foreign national, the passport and visa from the time of birth are also required.
The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and several opposition leaders called these rules unrealistic, especially in Bihar where many poor voters lack formal documentation.
They argued that this would disenfranchise lakhs of voters, violating their constitutional rights.
Over three crore voters may be affected, say petitioners
According to ADR, over three crore voters in Bihar could fail to meet these new document criteria and risk being removed from the voter list.
Petitioners argued that the ECI had not even provided valid reasons for ordering such a large-scale revision. Under Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, special revisions can only be done with a recorded justification.
Opposition slams move, says it targets poor and marginalised
The petitions were supported by a long list of opposition leaders and parties including Mahua Moitra, Manoj Jha, KC Venugopal, Supriya Sule, Yogendra Yadav, D Raja, DMK, and others. They warned that the new rules would mainly impact rural voters, daily-wage earners, and marginalised groups who often don’t have access to full documentation.
Some leaders also questioned why Aadhaar and voter IDs, issued by the same or related government bodies, were now being excluded as identity proof.
Court leaves final decision to ECI, but wants fairness
The court clearly stated that the ECI has the right to revise the rolls but must act fairly, reasonably, and with transparency. While it did not stop the SIR, it asked the poll panel to act in a manner that does not unfairly disenfranchise any eligible voter.
“We’re not doubting the EC, but this is about the right to vote. The process matters,” the court said.
(With ANI inputs)
SIR of electoral rolls in Bihar illegal, would disenfranchise lakhs of voters from marginalised section: ADR tells SC
The validity of the election commission’s controversial decision to direct Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Electoral Rolls in Bihar has been challenged in the Supreme Court. Association for Democratic Reforms tells the court that the decision would disenfranchise lakhs of marginalised people in the state which is against free and fair election. SIR’s requirement for citizenship documentation disproportionately affects marginalised communities, including Muslims, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and migrant workers, the petition says. The Supreme Court has passed multiple orders for election reform.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
“The SIR order dated 24.06.2025 if not set aside, can arbitrarily and without due process disenfranchise lakhs of voters from electing their representatives, thereby disrupting free and fair elections and democracy in the country, which are part of basic structure of the Constitution. The documentation requirements of the directive, lack of due process as well as the unreasonably short timeline for the said Special Intensive Revision of Electoral Roll in Bihar further make this exercise bound to result in removal of names of lakhs of genuine voters from electoral rolls leading to their disenfranchisement,” the petition said.
ADR, on whose pleas the apex court passed multiple orders for election reform, said in its petition that SIR’s requirement for citizenship documentation disproportionately affects marginalised communities, including Muslims, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and migrant workers, who may lack access to such documents.
“The order issued by ECI has shifted the onus of being on the voters’ list from the State to citizens.
It has excluded identification documents such as Aadhar or ration cards which further make marginalised communities and the poor more vulnerable to exclusion from voting. The Declaration as required under the SIR process is violative of Article 326 in so far as it requires a voter to provide documents to prove his/her citizenship and also citizenships of his/her mother or father, failing which his/her name would not be added to the draft electoral roll and can be deleted from the same,” the petition said.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
“Bihar is a state with high poverty and migration rates where many lack access to documents like birth certificates or parental records. As per estimates over 3 crore voters and more particularly from marginalized communities (such as SC, STs and migrant workers) could be excluded from voting due to the stringent requirements as mentioned in the SIR order. That the current reports from Bihar, where SIR is already underway, show that lakhs of voters from villages and marginalized communities do not possess the documents as being sought for them,” it said.
Supreme Court Asks ECI to Consider Aadhaar Card for Voter Verification in Bihar Amid Controversial Electoral Roll Revision
The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to stay the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) ongoing “Special Intensive Revision” (SIR) of the state’s electoral rolls. While refusing to halt the process, the Court raised pointed concerns about the exclusion of Aadhaar, Voter ID, and ration cards from the list of documents acceptable for verifying voter identity under the revision. It directed the ECI to consider including these commonly held identification documents during the verification drive. The next hearing is scheduled for July 28, ahead of the draft roll’s anticipated publication on August 1. The ECI has been instructed to submit a counter-affidavit by July 21, with rejoinders from the petitioners due by July 28. The SIR is the first non-statutory form of revision since electoral digitisation, and is aimed at voters enrolled after 2003. The exercise, they argue, is unprecedented and lacks legal backing under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 or the accompanying Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
A two-judge bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi, sitting on a partial working day, was hearing a batch of petitions challenging the legality, timing, and methodology of the SIR initiated in Bihar. These petitions argue that the SIR—lacking statutory recognition under existing electoral laws—could potentially disenfranchise millions, particularly among the poor, Dalits, Muslims, and migrant populations. The Court emphasized that while it was not questioning the sincerity or constitutional mandate of the Election Commission, the timing and execution of the revision exercise were raising serious doubts about procedural fairness and voter rights.
“We cannot stop a constitutional body from doing what it is supposed to do. At the same time, we will not let it do what it is not supposed to do,” the bench stated. It instructed the ECI to submit a counter-affidavit by July 21, with rejoinders from the petitioners due by July 28. The next hearing is scheduled for July 28, ahead of the draft roll’s anticipated publication on August 1.
Petitioners, including MPs, civil society leaders, and democratic rights organisations, contend that the ECI has, for the first time since electoral digitisation, initiated a non-statutory form of revision—the so-called SIR—targeting voters enrolled after 2003. The exercise, they argue, is unprecedented and lacks legal backing under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 or the accompanying Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), asserted that the SIR imposes arbitrary and burdensome requirements. He noted that even the Voter ID—issued by the ECI itself—and Aadhaar cards are excluded from the list of 11 accepted documents in the ECI’s June 24 directive. According to him, these exclusions are illogical, as the documents demanded, such as passports or permanent residence certificates, are unavailable to the vast majority of Biharis.
The Court acknowledged these concerns, observing that the matter raised fundamental issues central to democratic governance—specifically, the power of the ECI, the method of implementation, and the tight timelines against the backdrop of impending elections. Justice Dhulia remarked, “We are of the prima facie opinion that three issues are involved in this case: the authority of the ECI to initiate the revision, the procedural integrity of the exercise, and the timing, which appears compressed and potentially disruptive.”
During the hearing, Justice Bagchi observed that Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act allows the ECI discretion to carry out revisions, but that discretion must not be exercised arbitrarily. He queried why Aadhaar and Voter ID cards, which are widely used and institutionally accepted, were excluded. Justice Dhulia pointed out that several of the accepted documents are themselves based on Aadhaar data, further underlining the inconsistency.
Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the ECI, defended the process, stating that Aadhaar is not a proof of citizenship. To this, Justice Dhulia responded that citizenship determination lies with the Ministry of Home Affairs, not the ECI. Dwivedi assured the Court that no voter’s name would be removed without proper notice and hearing, and emphasised that 60% of voters had already verified their credentials. However, the bench questioned why such an exercise, so close to the elections, was initiated without greater lead time and public preparation.
Senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Shadan Farasat, and others appearing for petitioners including RJD MP Manoj Jha, activist Yogendra Yadav, and AIMIM MLA Akhtarul Imam, highlighted the disproportionate burden placed on ordinary citizens. Sibal described the directive as “an impossible task,” asserting that over 4 crore voters out of 8 crore would require re-verification. Singhvi pointed out that even a single wrongful deletion harms the democratic process and affects electoral fairness. Jha’s petition alleged that the SIR targets minorities and the socio-economically disadvantaged, while Yadav’s plea called for reverting to the updated electoral roll from January 2025 to prevent mass disenfranchisement.
The bench asked the ECI to respond on three specific points: its authority to conduct the SIR, the rationale for excluding commonly accepted ID documents, and the feasibility of completing the process before elections. It also questioned whether the ECI’s timeline was practical or realistic, and warned that poorly-timed or exclusionary steps might disenfranchise legitimate voters. “You’re giving people very little time to furnish documents. Many of them may not possess what you are demanding,” observed Justice Dhulia.
Dwivedi attempted to discredit the petitions by claiming they were not filed by actual voters, a stance the bench rejected firmly. “Are you serious with this objection?” Justice Dhulia asked, and Justice Bagchi followed up, saying, “This can’t be your best point.”
The Court also noted that several petitioners have asked for a stay not only on the Bihar exercise but on the possibility of such revisions being introduced in other states, such as West Bengal. Moitra’s petition raised concerns that the ECI is attempting to enforce fresh verifications even for voters who have participated in multiple elections over decades—without any provision in the law mandating such a practice. Her plea described the requirement for parental citizenship documents as extra-legal and exclusionary.
Petitions from ADR and the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) called the ECI’s action arbitrary and violative of constitutional rights under Articles 14 (equality), 19 (freedom), 21 (life and liberty), 325 and 326 (universal adult suffrage). They contend that the exercise lacks safeguards, transparency, and proportionality, and that it burdens vulnerable populations with unreasonable demands.
While the Court refused to stay the ECI’s process for now, it has asked the poll panel not to publish the draft electoral rolls until further hearing, effectively putting a pause on the timeline while maintaining the integrity of the ECI’s constitutional mandate. The matter remains under active judicial scrutiny, and the July 28 hearing is expected to shape the path forward both for the electoral process in Bihar and potentially for broader electoral reforms across India.
(With inputs from Agencies)
What the SC Is Asking About Bihar’s Voter Roll And Citizenship Test
The Supreme Court is hearing a batch of petitions challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls ahead of the Bihar Assembly elections. There are concerns that the SIR is being used to unfairly demand proof of citizenship from voters, especially the poor and marginalised. The court was particularly critical of the EC’s decision to exclude widely-used identity documents like Aadhaar, ration cards, and even voter ID cards from the list of accepted documents in the revision process. The matter will be heard next on July 28, with the Supreme Court asking the Election Commission to respond by July 21. The SIR, underway for the first time since 2003, is meant to weed out duplicate entries, migrants, and deceased voters. But critics say the process is far from routine and could lead to the mass deletion of genuine voters. Even verified voters whose names already exist in the 2003 “Mother Roll” must re-submit proof of Citizenship through Enumeration Forms and fresh documents. Yet, Aadhar, ration Cards, and voter IDs—documents held by millions—are not accepted.
The question struck at the heart of growing concerns that the SIR—meant to clean up the voter list—is being used to unfairly demand proof of citizenship from voters, especially the poor and marginalised. The court was particularly critical of the EC’s decision to exclude widely-used identity documents like Aadhaar, ration cards, and even voter ID cards from the list of accepted documents in the revision process.
“If you have a good reason to discard Aadhaar (as an acceptable document), you do it—give reasons,” the bench told the EC, as it acknowledged that the Aadhaar is often the foundational document for many other IDs.
Though the court appreciated the EC’s intent behind conducting the SIR, it was hesitant to halt the process altogether. However, SC raised serious concerns about the way it was being conducted—particularly the timing, and how closely it was tied to the upcoming Bihar elections.
“We are not stopping you. Do your work, but do it as mandated by the law,” the bench said.
During the hearing on July 10, the Supreme Court said the petitions raised “important questions which goes to the very root of the functioning of democracy in the country – the right to vote.” It flagged three issues, asking the Election Commission to respond by July 21.
Is the Election Commission empowered to undertake the exercise; The procedure and the manner in which the exercise is being undertaken, and; The timing, including the timings given for the preparation of the draft electoral roll.
The matter will be heard next on July 28.
What is the SIR and why is it causing alarm?
The Special Intensive Revision of Bihar’s voter list—underway for the first time since 2003—is meant to weed out duplicate entries, migrants, and deceased voters. But critics say the process is far from routine.
Multiple petitions before the Supreme Court argue that the SIR is “arbitrary,” “absurd,” and “unconstitutional.” One of the biggest red flags? Even verified voters whose names already exist in the 2003 “Mother Roll” must re-submit proof of citizenship through Enumeration Forms and fresh documents. Yet, Aadhaar, ration cards, and voter IDs—documents held by millions—are not accepted.
Petitioners, including MPs like Manoj Jha, Supriya Sule, Mahua Moitra, Yogendra Yadav, KC Venugopal, and organisations like the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), argue that this will lead to the mass deletion of genuine voters—many of whom may be unable to meet the document demands in the short window provided.
Among them, at least two MPs—Mahua Moitra and Thol Thirumavalavan—have challenged the SIR to “preempt” similar disenfranchisement in West Bengal and Tamil Nadu, which are scheduled to go to polls next year.
BJP leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay has also filed a plea. However, he supports the SIR saying it’s the government and poll panel’s “duty” to conduct Special Intensive Revisions of voter lists and “give a strong message” that India “is determined to fight against illegal infiltration”.
“Executive action should be taken to warn corrupt people who help infiltrators that betrayal of public trust will no longer be tolerated”, Upadhyay’s plea before the Supreme Court states.
A recent BOOM report highlighted how voters—some of whom have been casting their ballots for decades—are now at risk of being excluded from the rolls.
Is this a citizenship test disguised as a voter list clean-up?
This is the question at the heart of the petitions. Several lawyers and lawmakers argue that the SIR is essentially a backdoor attempt at creating a National Register of Citizens (NRC)—something that has already sparked controversy in Assam.
“This is actually an exercise to do citizenship screening,” senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi told the court.
One of the pleas—filed by the Association of Democratic Reforms (ADR)—suggested that the “ECI has shifted the onus of being on the voters’ list from the State to citizens.” Senior advocate Kapil Sibal supported this view, saying it should be the state’s responsibility to prove that someone is not a citizen—not the other way around.
However, this burden falls heaviest on Bihar’s poor, marginalised communities, and the migrants – many of whom don’t have access to the EC’s list of “acceptable” documents. According to lawyers, more than 87 per cent of Bihar’s population has Aadhaar cards. So why isn’t that enough?
The EC defended its decision by stating that Aadhaar is “not proof of citizenship”. But the court pushed back, saying only the government can decide someone’s citizenship through proper legal channels—and that too under the jurisdiction of the Home Ministry, not the Election Commission.
However, EC said citizenship was one of the requisites to vote in India, as such, Aadhar, which is not a “proof of citizenship” could not be an acceptable document.
“If citizenship is a mandate under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, you can conduct this exercise independent of the election process,” the court told the EC. “You can do this exercise to see non-citizens are not on the rolls,” the court said, but made it clear that citizenship determination should not be conflated with election preparations.
Also Read: Locked For Years: A New Life For Assam Residents As They Finally Get Aadhaar Cards
Can the EC finish the SIR on time?
Another major concern is the timeline. The EC has given itself just 90 days to complete the SIR—a deadline petitioners say is unrealistic, especially in a state like Bihar.
The Supreme Court, too, was sceptical. “You should’ve acted earlier. Isn’t it too late now for that?” the bench asked. “There is nothing wrong in having this intensive process so that non-citizens don’t remain on rolls—but it should be de hors (independent of) this election which is coming up.”
Supreme Court Flags Voter Disenfranchisement Fears: Set to Review Bihar Roll Revision on July 10
The Supreme Court of India is set to hear a series of petitions on July 10, 2025. Petitioners are contesting the Election Commission of India’s decision to carry out a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the Bihar electoral rolls. The petitioners claim that the process is flawed, discriminatory, and could disenfranchise over 4 crore voters. The outcome of this case could: Affect millions of voters in Bihar directly. Set a national precedent for how voter roll revisions are conducted. Influence similar exercises in other states such as West Bengal or Delhi. Test the balance between electoral integrity and constitutional rights in the world’S largest democracy. The Supreme Court may:Issue a temporary stay on the voter verification or deletion process. Extend the July 25 deadline for verification. Demand changes to the ECI’’ procedure to ensure no voter is unjustly removed.
Petitioners’ Main Arguments:
The documentation required for verification is too stringent . Common IDs like Aadhaar and Voter ID cards are reportedly not accepted, with voters asked to furnish birth certificates or parental citizenship proof —documents many rural and poor citizens lack.
. Common IDs like and are reportedly not accepted, with voters asked to furnish or —documents many rural and poor citizens lack. The process is being carried out during Bihar’s flood-prone monsoon season , making door-to-door enumeration logistically impractical.
, making door-to-door enumeration logistically impractical. Petitioners argue the revision is unconstitutional , violating Articles 14, 21, 325, and 326 , and is inconsistent with the Representation of the People Act, 1950 .
, violating Articles , and is inconsistent with the . The revision targets vulnerable groups—including Dalits, Muslims, and migrant workers—and could lead to engineered exclusions ahead of the November 2025 Assembly elections.
Who’s Involved?
The petitions have been filed by a range of individuals and organizations including:
Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR)
People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL)
Social activist Yogendra Yadav
MPs Mahua Moitra (TMC) and Manoj Jha (RJD)
Senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, and Gopal Sankaranarayanan are arguing the case, urging the Court to intervene to prevent mass disenfranchisement.
What Could Happen in Court?
On July 10, a two-judge bench (Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi) will assess whether the ECI’s process meets legal and constitutional standards. The Supreme Court may:
Issue a temporary stay on the voter verification or deletion process.
on the voter verification or deletion process. Extend the July 25 deadline for verification.
Clarify what documents are valid for voter verification.
Demand changes to the ECI’s procedure to ensure no voter is unjustly removed.
Political Ramifications
The move has triggered backlash from opposition parties, who call the revision a “votebandi” (voter suppression drive). They claim it’s timed and designed to influence the upcoming state polls. Congress, RJD, TMC, CPI(M), and others have expressed support for the petitioners.
Meanwhile, the BJP and its allies defend the ECI’s revision as necessary to clean up voter rolls and remove duplicate or bogus entries.
Broader Implications
The outcome of this case could:
Affect millions of voters in Bihar directly.
in Bihar directly. Set a national precedent for how voter roll revisions are conducted.
for how voter roll revisions are conducted. Influence similar exercises in other states such as West Bengal or Delhi.
in other states such as West Bengal or Delhi. Test the balance between electoral integrity and constitutional rights in the world’s largest democracy.
Conclusion
With over crores of voters at potential risk of involuntary deletion, the upcoming SC hearing isn’t just about procedural compliance—it touches on the core of democratic participation. As India gears up for pivotal elections, the Supreme Court’s ruling will be a critical test of whether administrative rigor can coexist with constitutional fairness.
Source: https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/editorial/roll-revision-and-the-burden-of-proof-3626543