In a crucial hearing on Thursday, the Supreme Court declined to stay the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) special intensive revision (SIR) of Bihar’s electoral rolls, despite strong objections from opposition parties and civil rights groups. The Court, however, expressed concern over the ECI’s refusal to accept widely-used identification documents like Aadhaar, ration cards, and Electoral Photo Identity Cards (EPIC) as valid proof for voter verification. A Bench led by Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi directed the ECI to explain its reasons should it choose to exclude these documents, stating that the list of acceptable documents should not arbitrarily ignore forms of ID already recognized by other government institutions.
The petitions—filed by NGOs and political leaders including Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, and Gopal Sankaranarayanan—argued that the SIR guidelines, particularly the cutoff at the 2003 electoral roll, were arbitrary and disproportionately affected the poor, rural, and undocumented populations of Bihar. Voters born after December 2004 are now required to furnish both their own and their parents’ citizenship documents—an unrealistic demand in a state where official birth records and civil documentation are often lacking. The petitioners alleged this move would lead to mass disenfranchisement, violating Articles 14, 19, 21, 325, and 326 of the Constitution. The Court agreed that the matter touches the very core of democratic participation and listed it for a detailed hearing on July 28, seeking the ECI’s response by July 21.
While the ECI defended its mandate under Article 324 and its authority to ensure only eligible citizens vote, the Court questioned both the timing and practicality of launching such an intensive exercise just months before the Bihar Assembly elections. The Bench noted that the appreciation of evidence for citizenship must be handled strictly and possibly by a quasi-judicial body. Justice Dhulia remarked that even he might struggle to provide all the required documents under such a tight deadline. The Court emphasized that while the ECI’s duty to maintain clean electoral rolls is constitutional, any process that risks disenfranchising millions of legitimate voters needs greater transparency, flexibility, and consideration for real-world limitations.
