The Supreme Court on Tuesday assured the petitioners challenging the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar that it would not let any mass exclusion take place during the draft list of voters currently being prepared by the Election Commission of India (ECI).
The Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi made the observations after Advocate Prashant Bhushan mentioned the ECI’s statement that 65 lakh persons have not submitted the enumeration forms during the SIR process as they were either dead or have permanently shifted elsewhere.
Appearing for the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), Advocate Bhushan said these persons would have to apply afresh for inclusion in the list.
The Apex Court observed that being a Constitutional authority, the ECI would be deemed to act in accordance with the law. The Commission had taken the January 2025 list as the starting point for the draft list and seeking corrections vis-a-vis 2025 entries.
The top court of the country said it was overviewing the whole process as a judicial authority. If there was any mass exclusion, it would step in, it assured and listed the matter for further hearing on August 12 and 13.
Representing RJD MP Manoj Jha, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal said tf the Election Commission mentioned the names of those 65 lakh people in the draft list, the petitioners would have no problem.
Noting that the Court was here to hear their concerns, the Bench told Sibal that if the draft list was conspicuously silent, the same should be brought to the notice of the Bench. Bring 15 people saying they were alive, it added.
Appearing for the ECI, Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi said the procedure allowed the filing of objections to the draft list. The Commission is set to make Bihar’s draft electoral rolls public on August 1.
Earlier on Monday, the Apex Court directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to consider including Aadhaar cards and Electoral Photo Identity Cards (EPICs) in the list of acceptable documents during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar.
The Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi rejected the argument given by the Commission that
Aadhaar cards could be obtained through fraudulent or falsified documentation.
Any of the documents enlisted by the ECI could be forged, it observed, and urged the Commission to include these two documents on grounds of mass inclusion.
The Bench passed the order on a batch of petitions challenging the ECI’s June 24 notification regarding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls on Bihar, ahead of the State Assembly polls.
The petitioners contended that the ECI’s directive violated Articles 14, 19, 21, 325, and 326 of the Constitution and deviated from the procedure laid down under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, as well as the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
The Commission defended its directive on the grounds that it was empowered to undertake such an exercise under Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
As per the ECI, the revision was necessary in light of urban migration, demographic shifts, and long-standing concerns about the accuracy of existing rolls, which had not been intensively revised in nearly 20 years.
Appearing for ECI, Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi submitted that there were large scale issues with ration cards and EPICs.
The Bench noted that as per the SIR notification, none of the documents were conclusive. It asked the rationale behind excluding only Aadhaar and EPIC card.
The Counsel replied that the Commission was accepting Aadhaar, but with a supporting document.
Appearing for one of the petitioners, Association of Democratic Reforms (ADR), Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan sought a stay on finalisation of the electoral roll.
The Apex Court, however, said it has already clarified that the process could not be stayed.
Dwivedi submitted that objections could always be filed to the draft.
The top court of the country observed that it would not take away the Court’s power to quash everything, if anything went wrong.
The Bench could not hear the matter today since it had to rise for a meeting with the Chief Justice of India (CJI). It directed asked the Counsel to give a timeline of their submissions.