New Delhi: The Supreme Court Thursday declined to interfere with the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise underway in Bihar, but raised questions about its timing, observing the mammoth drive is too close to the impending state elections.
“We have serious doubts whether you can meet the timeline,” observed the bench of justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi that was hearing petitions challenging the SIR process.
The bench also asked ECI to consider Aadhaar card, its own voter ID card and ration card as one of the documents to verify the identity of the voter before including his/her name in its draft electoral roll to be published on 1 August. These documents are not mentioned in the list of 11 valid official papers, which the ECI has sought from Bihar residents to include their names in the draft voter roll.
Through an order issued on 24 June the ECI had announced its decision to start the SIR in Bihar. This declaration requires Bihar residents to fill-up a form and to provide one of the 11 supporting documents enumerated in the list published along with the order. However, Aadhaar card, voter ID and ration card, besides the PAN card, do not find a place in this list. Omission of these crucial documents has raised concern and worry among the voters, who in the past have voted on the basis of the said documents.
This SIR in Bihar is being undertaken despite the annual summary revision of rolls. The last intensive revision of the electoral roll in Bihar happened in 2003. As per the 24 June order, electors whose names figured in the 2003 roll do not have to supply the documents, but have to mandatorily fill up the form. However, those who became eligible voters would have to adhere to the rule of giving one supporting document. During the hearing Thursday ECI counsel senior advocate Rajesh Dwivedi clarified that the list of documents to be considered for a verification of a voter is not exhaustive.
Hence, the court in its order remarked: “…in our opinion it would be in the interest of justice if the ECI also considers the following three documents – the Aadhaar card, EC voter ID card and the ration card.”
When ECI expressed reluctance over Aadhaar—since its not proof of citizenship—and ration card, the bench verbally told Dwivedi that if the ECI has “good reasons to discard,” then it can do so, albeit with reasons.
The bench listed the matter on 28 July for holding a further hearing in the case. The date was fixed in view of the fact that ECI is expected to publish the draft roll on 1 August. In the meantime, the bench said, ECI must file its written response within a week from now and gave the next week for the petitioners to file their rejoinder.
SC: Judicial review is limited
The bench observed that the petitions before it raised an important question, which goes to the very root of the functioning of India’s democratic functioning and that is the “right to vote.”
In the court’s opinion three significant issues arise from the petitions. The first being whether ECI has the power to undertake the exercise. The second is regarding the fairness of the procedure and manner in which the exercise is being undertaken, and lastly, the timeline drawn by the ECI to prepare the draft and invite objections to it. The judges were of the view that the time span is very short, considering Bihar is due for elections in November and the notification for it will come weeks in advance.
The bench did not pause the exercise, but observed the case needed a detailed hearing.
Representing the election watchdog, senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi argued that ECI drew powers from the Constitution to supervise, direct and control the preparation of the electoral roll. And with the passage of time the roll for Bihar needs revision on account of the fact that new people have become eligible, while some have died or relocated to another state.
“The power is clearly vested (in ECI). The only objection one can take is about exercise of the power–whether it is in conformity or so grossly arbitrary that it is going to result in large scale disenfranchisement as they have (petitioners) have contended,” Dwivedi contended.
He argued that the petitions were premature and assured that the poll body does not intend to exclude anybody from the voter’s list unless compelled by law. Dwivedi questioned the locus of the petitioners before the court and demanded to know if any of them is personally affected by the ECI’s move to carry out the intensive revision of Bihar’s electoral roll.
His argument was in response to the court’s three queries based on the petitioners’ submissions in the case. “We understand the exercise (SIR) and appreciate that it’s a wholesome one to see that a redundant name doesn’t remain on the roll. It is the constitutional duty of the ECI to do so. For this purpose, judicial review is limited,” the bench observed.
Despite Dwivedi’s vehement assertion that the exercise is not intended to disenfranchise a voter, someone who has voted in the elections between 2003 and 2025, the court noted that the exercise can “inadvertently or circumstances beyond ECI’s control” omit an elector’s name. When asked Dwivedi confirmed that such a voter would be given an opportunity to represent himself/herself once the draft list is released.
It was then that the court expressed doubts about the integrity of the exercise, considering it was launched very close to the forthcoming elections in Bihar. “With such a population being subjective to such a review, is it possible for the ECI to do it in the limited time (available),” the judges wondered.
At this Dwivedi submitted that the court can stop the ECI anytime later, if it believes that there are faults in the exercise. “They (petitioners) are saying right now that what is being undertaken by you is neither a summary or intensive but an SIR—something not in the book. Also, they are saying that for the last 20 years voters have participated in elections and you suddenly come up with the rule regarding the documents,” the bench said.
The judges told the counsel that practically it was not possible for voters to present the kind of documents the ECI has asked for, as it pressed upon the election body to accept Aadhaar card and voter ID card for its verification process.
The judges pointed to the amended section 23 of the Representative Act of 1950 and said ECI must accept Aadhaar as a relevant document for the purposes of identity and proof of entry in electoral roll since that was the legal position. Section 23 of the RP Act deals with the inclusion of names in electoral rolls. It outlines the process to apply for registration, the verification process by the electoral registration officer. In 2021 the provision was amended to allow Aadhaar linkage with electoral rolls.
“You are so stridently opposed to Aadhaar as one of the documents. If it’s included it does not stand in the way of the policy you have formulated. In this document-starved country from where will people get these documents? We are telling you the practicality, particularly the timeline that you have framed,” the bench added.
(Edited by Amrtansh Arora)
Also Read: Percentage of voters who don’t trust ECI nearly doubled in last 5 yrs — CSDS-Lokniti survey