The Supreme Court of India on Thursday refused to halt the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, but raised concerns about the timing of the exercise, which comes just months ahead of the Assembly elections in the state.
Hearing a batch of petitions challenging the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) decision, a bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi observed that while the poll body’s mandate to revise electoral rolls is rooted in the Constitution, the timing close to the state elections required scrutiny.
“Your (ECI’s) exercise is not the problem, it is the timing,” Justice Dhulia said during the hearing. “Why connect SIR in Bihar to the assembly elections in November? Why can’t it be irrespective of elections?”
The court, however, maintained that there was logic and practicality in the ECI’s move, noting that the large-scale purging of rolls aims to ensure non-citizens are omitted.
“What they are doing is a mandate under the Constitution. There is a practicality involved. They fixed the date because it was the first time after computerisation. So there is a logic,” the bench said.
Emphasising that the right to vote goes to the root of democracy, the bench posed three pointed questions to the poll body: whether its powers are being exercised correctly, whether the process adopted is sound, and whether the timing is appropriate.
“The courts will not touch the electoral roll once they are finalised, which means a disenfranchised person will lack the option to challenge it before the election,” Justice Dhulia added.
Last month, the Election Commission ordered a revision of Bihar’s electoral rolls, citing extensive additions and deletions over the past two decades that had raised the possibility of duplicate entries.
The move has come under sharp criticism from the opposition, including the Congress and the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD).
Representing the petitioners, advocate Sankarnarayanan argued that the exercise was “completely arbitrary and discriminatory.”
He told the bench, “They are saying that before 2003, the presumption of citizenship was in your favour. However, after 2003, even if you have voted in five elections, it doesn’t matter whether the presumption of citizenship is in your favour.”
A key sticking point has been the exclusion of Aadhaar and voter identity cards from the list of 11 indicative documents that applicants can provide to verify their credentials. Advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for the petitioners, described it as a “citizenship screening” exercise. “The entire country is going mad after Aadhaar, and then ECI says that it will not be taken,” Singhvi said.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, also arguing for the petitioners, questioned the poll body’s authority to determine citizenship. “Who are they (ECI) to say we are citizens or not? The burden is on them and not me. They have to have some material in their possession to say that I am not a citizen,” Sibal said.
The Supreme Court also pressed the Election Commission on why Aadhaar had been excluded as acceptable proof.
Responding, the counsel for the poll body maintained that Aadhaar cannot be used to establish citizenship and that the issue falls under the Home Ministry’s domain, not the Election Commission’s.
Follow us
