The Supreme Court has refused to stay the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the voter list in Bihar, but raised serious concerns about the timing of the exercise, which comes just months ahead of the state assembly elections.
A bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi, while hearing multiple petitions related to the issue, directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to treat Aadhaar, Voter ID, and Ration Card as valid documents during the verification drive.
“We have no reason to doubt them (the Election Commission). They are saying, ‘Check our credibility.’ The matter needs to be heard,” the bench observed, scheduling the next hearing for July 28. In the meantime, the court directed that the revised voter list should not be published in any form until then.
However, the court expressed reservations about launching such a significant revision process so close to the elections. “Your process is not the problem, the timing is,” the bench said, questioning why the SIR was being linked to the upcoming assembly elections in November. “Why can’t this exercise be conducted after the elections or separately from them?” the court asked.
Justice Dhulia further noted, “Once the voter list is finalized, courts don’t interfere… which means a person deprived of their voting right won’t have the chance to challenge it before the elections.”
At the same time, the court acknowledged that there was nothing inherently wrong with cleansing the voter list through a rigorous process, as long as it ensures non-citizens are not included.
The key takeaway from today’s hearing in the Supreme Court was that the bench refused to grant any relief in the matter concerning the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the voter list in Bihar. However, the Court made it clear that the issue warranted further scrutiny and scheduled the next hearing for July 28 in another bench.
During the proceedings, the Court advised the Election Commission to treat Aadhaar, Voter ID cards, and Ration Cards as valid documents for the purpose of voter verification. Emphasizing the need for caution, the Court directed the Commission not to publish any form of the revised voter list until the matter is heard again.
As the hearing progressed, the Supreme Court posed three critical questions to the Election Commission, challenging the rationale behind launching the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Bihar’s voter list just months before the state assembly elections. The bench sought clarification on the Commission’s legal authority to conduct such a revision, the validity of the process itself, and most importantly, the timing—why now?
Senior advocate Shadan Farasat, appearing for the petitioners, opened his argument by pointing out that since the last revision in 2003, India has witnessed ten major elections—five Lok Sabha and five state assembly polls. He highlighted the dramatic population increase in Bihar from 4 crore in 2003 to approximately 7.9 crore today. Farasat questioned why such a significant revision exercise, including the issuance of a draft list within just 30 days, was being carried out so close to the upcoming elections.
He further criticized the Election Commission’s refusal to accept Aadhaar as a valid document, despite legislative amendments that explicitly allow Aadhaar-based voter verification. Describing the selection of acceptable documents as arbitrary, Farasat argued that even a voter’s own voter ID card was being disregarded, while the Commission demanded documents to verify parental details. He noted that certain groups, including members of the judiciary, were reportedly being granted exemptions—raising concerns of discrimination.
Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, while initially observing that the Commission’s actions had a constitutional basis, asked, “What’s wrong with what the Election Commission is doing? It is a task mandated by the Constitution.” However, as arguments unfolded, the court echoed the petitioners’ core concern—not the legality of the process, but its timing. The justices underscored that while the aim of purifying the electoral roll is legitimate, carrying out such a move so close to the elections raises serious questions about fairness and intent.
Last month, the Election Commission ordered a revision of the voter list in Bihar, citing the possibility of widespread duplicate entries due to large-scale additions and deletions over the past two decades. The move sparked sharp criticism from opposition parties, particularly the Congress and the RJD, who questioned both the timing and intent behind the decision.
As part of the revision process, the Commission mandated the submission of specific documents for voter verification, narrowing the list to just 11 approved IDs. Notably, the Commission excluded commonly used identification such as Aadhaar, ration cards, and driving licenses—declaring them invalid for this purpose. The decision raised eyebrows, especially since Aadhaar is currently accepted across the country for almost all official purposes. Yet, the Commission insisted it would not consider it acceptable for verifying voter identity.
You said:
Ask ChatGPT
NewsHashtag decodes trending, real-time stories from India and across the globe, helping you stay one step ahead of the day’s talking points. Being a digital-first platform means we use new media technologies to transform storytelling: integrating data, interactive charts, video, and audio directly into the narratives that matter.
