NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it would intervene immediately if there was “mass exclusion” of voters in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise of electoral rolls in Bihar, while hearing a batch of pleas challenging the revision ahead of the state assembly elections scheduled for November.
A two-judge bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi made the observation after senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioners including NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), alleged that people were being excluded from the draft electoral list scheduled for publication on 1 August by the Election Commission of India (ECI), potentially depriving them of their fundamental right to vote.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, also appearing for ADR, said the ECI had issued a press release stating that 65 lakh people were either deceased or had permanently relocated. Echoing this concern, Sibal pointed out that only the ECI had access to the data on who these 65 lakh individuals were. He added that if the ECI included their names in the draft list, the petitioners would not have any objection.
Responding to these concerns, the bench told Sibal, “As per your contention, you believe that around 65 lakh voters may not feature in the list. The EC is seeking correction vis-à-vis 2025 entry. We are overseeing the process as a judicial authority. If there is mass exclusion, we will immediately step in. You bring 15 people saying they are alive, yet have been excluded,” the bench added.
Countering these submissions, senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing the ECI, argued that the complete picture would emerge only after objections to exclusions were reviewed.
“People are entitled to object. A 30-day period has been granted for filing objections. The petitioners should assist in ensuring the names are added,” said Dwivedi, adding that the entire exercise is expected to be completed by 15 September.
The court clarified that if the draft list was “conspicuously silent” on certain names, the petitioners could immediately bring it to the court’s notice.
Fixing the pleas for hearing on 12 and 13 August, the apex court directed the petitioners challenging the ECI’s decision to submit their written arguments by 8 August.
When Sibal requested to make oral submissions on the matter, the court assured him that both he and Prashant Bhushan would be heard regarding their apprehensions about the draft list to be published on 1 August.
On 28 July, the Supreme Court had refused to stay the publication of the draft voters’ list on 1 August 2025, following the SIR exercise in Bihar. The court reiterated that the ECI must consider the inclusion of Aadhaar and Voter ID cards to ensure statutory correctness.
Previously, on 10 July, a vacation bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi had refused to stay the revision of the Bihar voters’ list and directed the ECI to complete the process.
“In our prima facie view, since the list is not exhaustive, it will be in the interest of justice for the ECI to also consider Aadhaar card, Electoral Photo Identity Card issued by the Election Commission, and the ration card,” the bench had stated.
That order came after the apex court heard several petitions challenging the ECI’s decision to undertake the SIR of electoral rolls in poll-bound Bihar.
On 21 July, the ECI informed the top court that 90% of electors had already submitted enumeration forms. The Commission also stated that it was placing special focus on marginalised and poor communities to ensure no one was left out of the list.
In its affidavit, the ECI defended the exclusion of Aadhaar from the list of 11 accepted documents, arguing that Aadhaar does not establish a person’s eligibility to vote under Article 326. However, it clarified that the list of documents was indicative and not exhaustive.
The ECI maintained that the SIR exercise was initiated following concerns raised by political parties across the spectrum.
“For the first time, all political parties have been so involved at this scale in intensive revision exercises, with all parties appointing more than 1.5 lakh Booth Level Agents (BLAs) to work in tandem with Booth Level Officers (BLOs) to reach out to every eligible elector,” the ECI stated in its affidavit.
The Commission further asserted that most of the statistics cited by the petitioners were outdated. “Quite apart from the fact that full reports have not been annexed, the petitioners have deliberately suppressed the fact that these reports do not present contemporary facts and figures, and thus cannot be relied upon,” it added.
It also pointed out that some of the petitioners were MPs and MLAs from recognised political parties in Bihar, and these parties were actively participating in the SIR exercise through their appointed BLAs. “While some of the petitioners are participating in the SIR, they are simultaneously objecting to this transparent exercise conducted by the ECI. These facts were within the knowledge of the petitioners but were not disclosed before the court and have been deliberately suppressed,” the ECI claimed.
The Commission reiterated that the SIR was a necessary and justified process and highlighted that Aadhaar is not proof of citizenship.
Earlier, the apex court had questioned the timing of the ECI’s decision to start the SIR exercise so close to the elections, noting that while there was nothing wrong with conducting the SIR itself, it ideally should have begun months earlier.
The court was hearing petitions filed by ADR, People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), political activist Yogendra Yadav, Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, RJD MP Manoj Jha, Congress leader K C Venugopal and Mujahid Alam.
The petitioners sought to quash the ECI’s 24 June 2025 order initiating the SIR.
“Issue a writ, order or direction setting aside Order and Communication dated 24.06.2025 and accompanying guidelines issued by ECI to conduct SIR of the electoral rolls in Bihar as being in violation of Articles 14, 19, 21, 325, 326 of the Constitution of India and provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and Registration of Electors Rules, 1960,” ADR said in its plea.
“The SIR order, 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 the basic structure of the Constitution,” the NGO added.