Manas Dasgupta
NEW DELHI, Aug 12: The Supreme Court on Tuesday hinted that it is not averse to the idea of setting aside the results of the on-going “Special Intensive Revision” (SIR) of the electoral rolls in Bihar if “illegality is proven” and a decision to this effect can be taken as late as September, the court said.
A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing petitions on the “SIR) exercise of the Bihar electoral rolls.
Justice Surya Kant said it should be clarified whether the SIR process was according to the law or not. “Tell us whether such a process can be continued or not? If you say that such a process is approved under the conditional scheme, then we will consider the process. If you say that it is not in the Constitution, then action will be taken accordingly.”
The top court further sought clarity on the alleged exclusion of 65 lakh names from the draft voter list. It questioned the basis of these figures, asking, “We want to understand whether your apprehension is imaginary or a real concern.” The ECI told the court it was conducting “a purification exercise” and urged petitioners to assist rather than attempt to stall the process.
While not a verdict on the Election Commission’s contentious re-verification of nearly eight crore voters months before an election, the remarks are a big positive for opposition leaders and activists who have challenged the exercise’s constitutional premise and legal validity. It is also a boost for an opposition that – led by Rahul Gandhi and his PowerPoint presentations – has accused the EC of colluding with the ruling BJP to commit voter fraud. Mr Gandhi has argued, vociferously, that the “SIR” exercise of Bihar’s voter lists was a smokescreen behind which lakhs of people – from marginalised communities and who, the opposition insists, traditionally vote for the Congress or its allies – are being disenfranchised.
The Supreme Court during its previous hearings on the petition had promised to step in without fail, and immediately, if persons omitted as dead from the draft electoral roll in Bihar under “SIR” were found “very much alive.” The Bench had made it clear to the EC that the court would not hesitate to act if the list was riddled with “mass exclusions.” The petitioners had criticised the SIR as “citizenship screening.”
“Bring 15 people they [Election Commission] say are dead, but found alive… we will look into it,” Justice Bagchi had told senior advocate Kapil Sibal and advocate Prashant Bhushan, for petitioners. The oral statement by the Bench came in response to apprehensions raised by Opposition parties and NGOs, including Association for Democratic Rights, that 65 lakh people in Bihar have been excluded from the draft electoral roll with an explanation that most of them were either dead or had permanently shifted.
The Election Commission has vehemently denied the opposition allegation of collusion with the BJP, insisting the ‘special intensive revision’ was meant to ‘purify’ the roll by weeding out ineligible voters; these include people who have died or no longer live in Bihar and people registered multiple times. So far over 65 lakh people, including many from Nepal, Myanmar, and Bangladesh, who found a way to be added to India’s electoral roll, have been cut from the list, the EC said earlier.
But the entire exercise has been shrouded in controversy since it started. The petitioners have questioned the SIR’s constitutional premise and the timing. In Tuesday’s hearing also the petitioners pointed out that the ECI which demanded documents (excluding the Aadhaar and its own ID card) proving citizenship – lacks the authority to decide that matter.
Mr Sibal argued that the poll body was not accepting Aadhaar, ration, and EPIC cards as proof of citizenship. “They [Election Commission] are not accepting Aadhaar; if I say I’m a citizen of India, the burden is on them to prove it, but none of this has happened,” Sibal said. Citizenship, the petitioners argued, was the jurisdiction of the Indian government, specifically the Union Home Ministry. “They (i.e., the Election Commission) say Aadhaar is not enough to determine citizenship… but they don’t have the authority to decide citizenship…” “The EC was never intended to be the policeman of citizenship.”
“The court had said they only need to ascertain identity… you cannot have a system where citizenship is doubted for five crore people…” senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for one of the petitioners, said, “The presumption is they all are valid citizens unless the Government of India follow procedure and remove them,” Mr Singhvi pointed out.
The Court, however, endorsed the ECI’s views that Aadhaar should not be considered conclusive proof of citizenship, stating that it must be independently verified. “The EC is correct in saying Aadhaar cannot be accepted as conclusive proof of citizenship. It has to be verified,” Justice Kant said.
“They are saying that it cannot be confirmed. Talking about birth certificate, only 3.056% have it. Passport is for 2.7%…14.71% have matriculation certificate,” said Sibal. Justice Surya Kant said there must be something to prove that you are a Citizen of India. “Everyone has a certificate, it is needed to buy a SIM…”
Sibal also referred to Rule 13 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, which says every objection to a proposed inclusion of a name shall be in Form 7 and preferred by some person whose name is in the roll.
The bench then elaborated that Aadhaar, when submitted with other documents like a ration card, necessitates verification by the Election Commission. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that all eligible voters are adequately informed about the necessary documentation to prevent any unwarranted exclusions. Justice Kant highlighted the necessity for legal authority in the verification process, saying, “If they don’t have the power, everything ends. But if they have the power, there can’t be a problem.”
Sibal argued that the poll panel’s process would lead to large-scale exclusion of voters, especially those unable to submit required forms. He claimed, “They admit in their affidavit that they did not conduct any survey.”
Sibal said in a small constituency, there were 12 people who have been shown as dead, but they are alive. “BLO has not done anything.” On this, senior lawyer Rakesh Dwivedi from the ECI said this was just a draft roll.
The Supreme Court asked the commission: “We want to know from you how many people have been identified as dead. Your officers must have done some work.” Lawyer Dwivedi said in such a big process some mistakes will definitely happen, but it was not right to call a dead person alive and there was no need for a new IA.
The ECI dismissed the petitioners’ claims as speculative and pointed out that no political party or individual voter had approached the court over the issue. The bench also remarked it was a “sweeping argument” to suggest that no one in Bihar possessed the required documents. The Election Commission in an affidavit to the Supreme Court last week assured that nobody’s name would be deleted from the draft electoral roll without prior notice and a formal order.
Meanwhile, political agitations over the Bihar SIR continued to rage on Tuesday, with several parties protesting, even in the parliament, against the exercise. Several Opposition MPs on Tuesday wore T-shirts with ‘Minta Devi’ and her picture emblazoned on them and ‘124 Not Out’ written at the back during a protest in the Parliament House complex against the Election Commission’s voter roll revision in Bihar.
They claimed that Minta Devi is a “124-year-old first-time voter” whose name was found on the Bihar voter list demanding a rollback of the SIR exercise in the poll-bound state. “There are unlimited cases like that. Abhi picture baki hai (there is more to come),” Congress MP Rahul Gandhi said when asked about Minta Devi. Congress general secretary Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, who was among those who wore the t-shirt, also said there were several such cases in which addresses and names of relatives, etc., are all fake.
However, an independent probing of the opposition claim revealed that Minta Devi, who was registered as a voter in Siwan’s Daraunda Assembly constituency, was not 124 years old but 35. A poll body official said her age was changed due to an error in her application form.
The Election Commission has said no party has approached it for inclusion or removal of names in the draft voters’ list in Bihar. It said 10,570 forms have so far been received from individual electors seeking inclusion of names in the draft roll.
However, an investigation by the Congress has found that at least 37 “deceased electors” have made it to the draft electoral rolls published on August 1, 2025, after the SIR, all from a single booth in Teghra Assembly constituency. The Congress has taken it up with the poll officials. The memorandum submitted to the District Election Officer-cum-District Magistrate by the party’s Begusarai unit, demanded “all deletions should be re-verified and corrections made by the BLOs (Booth Level Officers) themselves and deadline for corrections should be extended by 30-days.” The deadline for the revision is August 31, 2025.
Abhay Kumar Singh ‘Sarjan’, president of Begusarai unit of Congress claimed there were anomalies in the draft electoral list of other Bihar constituencies too. “It is ridiculous to see as many as 37 dead electors name at one single booth in Teghra Assembly constituency… one can well imagine the situation of all booths in the whole constituency,” he said. There were several other anomalies like deletion of names of several genuine electors from the list,” Mr Singh said.
Ram Ratan Singh, Communist Party of India (CPI) MLA representing Teghra Assembly constituency said his party too had submitted a list of anomalies in the published draft SIR list of electors to the poll officials but no action has been taken so far. “Such anomalies are found in every Assembly constituencies. Several electors are shown either residing in the same address or several voters names have been deleted, while several dead are enlisted…” Mr Singh said.