Revision of Electoral Rolls in Bihar | Day 14: Petitioners warn against Assam-style “doubtful voter” approach

Sibal: Voter burden and risk of exclusion run contrary to universal franchise

“What you decide will decide the fate of democracy in India,” began Sibal. He recalled that the freedom struggle was anchored in equality and universal franchise, and submitted that an electoral process “cannot be exclusionary.”

He argued that the new enumeration form requirement reverses the statutory model of house-to-house verification by Booth Level Officers (BLOs). “It is the ECI’s job,” he said, pointing out that special revisions have always relied on BLO visits. Many voters, he submitted, are illiterate or lack documents and it is a “real constitutional issue” if they lose their vote for failing to fill the form. “If you want to delete my name, delete it,” he added, “but only with reason.”

Sibal then referred to the Form 6, 7 and 8 under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. He said these forms create statutory safeguards to govern inclusion, objection and correction of entries. The SIR departs from this statutory scheme, he said, alleging introduction of new requirements outside this framework. Sibal submitted that the SIR cannot shift the evidentiary burden upon voters, and argued that completing the exercise in two months would compromise fairness.

Bench evaluates apprehensions based on findings from Bihar

CJI Surya Kant noted that concerns about timelines must be assessed separately from the legality of the process. He recalled the Court’s experience during the Bihar exercise and said that despite extensive directions and the deployment of paralegal volunteers, “nobody came forward to say I have been excluded.” The feared mass deletions, he said, had not materialised in Bihar.

When Sibal urged the Court to “please see the reality of our country,” CJI Surya Kant observed that “in rural areas, voting day is a celebration” and voters often remain vigilant about the inclusion of their names.

Sibal replied that errors may still occur and pointed out that some voters had been falsely marked as deceased. Justice Bagchi noted that surveys are not always accurate and that BLOs may receive incorrect information.

Sibal then submitted that software could detect duplicates. Justice Bagchi agreed but said digital tools cannot identify deceased voters and remarked that “dead persons’ votes go to a political party with strength.”

Scope of BLO powers and scrutiny of citizenship

Justice Bagchi referred to the ECI’s authority under Section 23 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (RP Act) to conduct surveys. Sibal clarified that the petitioners were not questioning ECI’s power but the manner of its exercise.

The Bench discussed whether the power to revise rolls includes the power to verify documents. Sibal accepted this in principle but said a reasonable evidentiary threshold is necessary. Otherwise, “the ECI will ask every elector to show how they are a citizen,” he submitted. He pointed out that the statute contains no statutory mechanism for a BLO-initiated objection and stressed that a BLO cannot decide citizenship.

Justice Bagchi responded that BLOs do not determine nationality but verify particulars such as date and place of birth. Sibal said that “millions will not have the certificates” that BLOs may request. Justice Bagchi reiterated that Aadhaar is a permissible document for proof of residence and added that the safeguard of a post-decision hearing must be provided for voters. Sibal questioned whether notices or appeals were actually provided on the ground and asked the ECI to demonstrate such instances.

Sibal then referred to the practice in Assam, noting that the SIR there does not require enumeration forms. CJI Surya Kant said that “Assam has its own uniqueness, different kinds of challenges.” Bhushan elaborated on Assam’s history with “doubtful voters” and argued that BLOs cannot raise such doubts without an order from a competent authority. He pointed out that the ECI has stated that citizenship adjudication is beyond its remit.

Referring to Section 16 of the RP Act which lists grounds for disqualification, Sibal concluded by submitting that it was “completely erroneous” to treat citizenship as a BLO-level inquiry.

The Court will continue to hear the matter after lunch today.