Revision of Electoral Rolls in Bihar | Day 13: Multiple petitioners approach the Court challenging the SIR exercise in different states
Challenge to the ECI’s Revision of Electoral Rolls in BiharJudges: Surya Kant J, Joymalya Bagchi J
Today, the Supreme Court heard further arguments challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar. The Election Commission of India (ECI) had begun the SIR exercise with Bihar. It is currently being carried out in other states. Some of them have approached the top court and challenges have surfaced at various High Courts. The Court issued notice in petitions filed from West Bengal, Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. It noted that the states concerned similar challenges and questions raised in the Bihar matter. It directed High Courts to defer hearings while the Court examines the legality and the scope of the exercise.
In the previous hearing, petitioners had pointed out that the updated electoral rolls in Bihar had not been made publicly available. Further, they alleged large-scale deletions of voters in the electoral roll without adequate notice. The Court had observed that it had “no doubt” the ECI would fulfil its responsibility to publish the final lists and directed the body to file submissions on the scope of its authority to conduct the SIR.
States make their submissions
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for R.S. Bharathi, a member of parliament from the DMK, submitted that the SIR was being implemented on a uniform schedule across states without regard to local seasonal and administrative conditions. He pointed out that Tamil Nadu was entering its monsoon and flood management period, followed by Christmas travel and then the Pongal harvest, during which many residents are away from their place of registration. He also noted that patchy or absent network connectivity in rural districts limited the feasibility of digital submission requirements.
Sibal argued that the ECI’s communication from 27 October had changed the procedure for the ongoing SIR. Under earlier practice, verification notices and supporting documents were generally sought during the enumeration stage. However, under the 27 October instructions, documents would be requested only after publication of the draft rolls and only where the ERO specifically asks for them. Sibal contended that this would effectively reduce the time available for voters to correct or object to entries. “Earlier, this process used to take years. Now it is sought to be completed in one month,” he said. He added that political parties had raised concerns that rushed revision risked improper deletions or additions, stating, “Why this great hurry?”
Justice Surya Kant responded that the Court would not presume irregularity, observing, “A constitutional authority is conducting this exercise. If deficiencies are pointed out, they can be addressed. Why are you so apprehensive?” When Sibal noted similar concerns in West Bengal, Justice Kant observed that the Court was “aware of ground realities” and that practical issues could be corrected in response to specific representations.
The Bench then issued notice in all six petitions, which Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi accepted on behalf of the ECI. At his request, the Court asked High Courts to keep parallel SIR-related writ petitions in abeyance, stating, “Since this Court is seized of the matter pertaining to the legality of the SIR of electoral rolls in various states, we request the jurisdictional High Courts to defer proceedings touching upon the validity of the SIR.”
ADR: Release 2003 SIR data in a searchable format
In the Bihar matter, Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the Association for Democratic Reforms, drew attention to systemic concerns requiring interim clarification. He submitted that the ECI must not treat the SIR as a citizenship verification exercise, as ECI has no authority to determine citizenship status. Justice Kant noted that the issue would arise when the legal basis of the SIR is examined. Bhushan then pointed to reports of multiple entries of the same individual, sometimes with the same photograph, and urged the ECI to use existing de-duplication software to identify such repetitions. Justice Kant stated that this was a constructive suggestion and that “there should be no difficulty with that.”
Bhushan further requested that individuals submitting enumeration forms be provided acknowledgement slips. He noted that enumeration forms were unavailable on the ECI website, leaving voters without any proof of participation. He then sought access to the 2003 electoral roll in a searchable format, explaining that booth renumbering over the years made verification difficult without a machine-readable historical record. Justice Joymalya Bagchi noted that electoral rolls contain identifiable personal data, and that the ECI holds such data in trust, suggesting that password-protected individual verification could be explored to balance transparency and data protection. Bhushan agreed to examine this model.
The Bench noted that the case would proceed along two parallel tracks: First, arguments on the legal authority of the ECI to conduct the SIR; and second, state-specific responses to field implementation concerns. The ECI was granted two weeks to file counter-affidavits.
The Court directed that interim applications will be heard first on 26 November, with no other matters to be listed on that date, and 27 November, if necessary.