Revision of Electoral Rolls in Bihar | Day 1: Petitioner’s apprehensions about SIR are “speculative,” says ECI

Does the SIR have a legal basis? 

Opening arguments for the petitioners, Sankaranarayanan submitted that the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (ROPA), and the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, recognise only two categories of revision: summary and intensive. The SIR, he argued, was an unprecedented third category without statutory backing. “What has happened on 24 June is to order a special intensive revision. It’s not in the Act, not in the Rules. First time in the history of India,” he said.

While the ECI cited a similar exercise in 2003, Sankaranarayanan pointed out that it had covered a smaller electorate and had not been replicated in over two decades. He also questioned the ECI’s sudden decision to undertake a nationwide exercise within 30 days, targeting over seven crore voters in Bihar alone.

The ECI argued that Section 21(3) of ROPA allows for a special revision “in such manner” as the Commission may direct. Justice Bagchi noted this non-obstante clause did not refer to any “prescribed procedure”, unlike the other sub-sections in the provision. However, the petitioners pushed that this discretion must still be exercised reasonably and with procedural safeguards. 

Does the SIR reverse burden onto voters?

Farasat, Singhvi and Sibal argued that the SIR reversed the presumption that a person, over the age of 18, is eligible to vote. As per the notification, those enrolled before 2003 were required to submit a form; those added after 2003 had to furnish additional documents to prove citizenship.

 “Today, everybody has to put in a form. If one person does not fill a form, he is out,” Farasat said. Singhvi added that the burden of proof has been flipped as the notification treats all post-2003 enrollees as potentially ineligible. Justice Dhulia summarised this concern, observing that the legal presumption in favour of registered voters was being “taken away.”

Dwivedi assured the Court that the Commission was not casting the burden onto voters. “The burden is on us”, he stated after pointing out that the ECI was undertaking a house-to-house verification exercise through over a lakh Booth Level Officers (BLOs) and party volunteers. He added that 60 percent of forms had been filled and “more than half had been “uploaded on the ECINET website. In case of any omission, voters had the right to object and resubmit.

Is the exclusion of Aadhaar arbitrary?

Petitioners pointed out that the Aadhar, voter ID, PAN and Ration cards were excluded from the restrictive list of 11 acceptable documents under the SIR. They argued that these documents are crucial markers of identity because of their widespread use. Sibal noted that over 87 percent of Bihar’s population holds Aadhaar. Singhvi submitted that the direction to exclude these markers was a “massive departure without legal sanction.” Grover added that ration cards are often the only form of identification for migrant and poor communities.

Dwivedi clarified that while Aadhaar is not proof of citizenship, it can be used for identity verification. “Each document is created for a purpose,” he said. “I will have to show some documents that this is my house, property… Am I the person I am claiming to be?”

The Bench pressed the Commission on this. Justice Dhulia pointed out that Aadhaar is often a foundational document for securing other official IDs. He pointed out that the procurement of a Caste Certificate, one of the 11 documents, required the Aadhar card. Justice Bagchi observed that Section 56 of the Aadhaar Act allows for harmonisation with older laws. The Bench acknowledged that the ECI’s list was a  “non-exhaustive” list of 11 documents.  However, they urged the Commission to explicitly consider Aadhaar, voter ID and ration cards as valid supporting documents, noting that this “would satisfy most of the petitioners.”

Are there procedural gaps which risk mass deletion?

Farasat argued that the SIR lacked necessary safeguards. Instead of identifying potentially ineligible voters beforehand, the ECI was requiring all voters to resubmit the pre-filled enumeration forms. If a name did not appear in the draft roll, the voter was effectively excluded. Moreover, even the Bench asked the Commission whether voters previously enrolled would be dropped merely because they failed to submit the enumeration form. 

Singhvi added that this violated principles of natural justice. He highlighted that one has to produce documents to show that he was invalidly excluded to rebut the ECI’s decision. They also pointed out that the ECI had carried out a summary revision in January 2025, which had prepared a list of voters. This summary revision was carried out every year, apart from the COVID-19 years. What was the requirement to carry out a mass revision exercise this close to the state elections? 

Dwivedi assured the Court that the ECI’s mass exercise is a harmonious process that involves political parties. He pointed out that apart from BLOs, there are Booth Level Agents (BLAs) belonging to these state and national level parties who are contributing to the house-to-house verification process. “So no one is left out”, he stated. Further, he assured the Bench that the January 2025 list prepared during the summary revision was not being ignored. 

He added that draft lists would not be published without a full 90-day window for objections. “The person has a right to put in an omission,” he said. He added that the ECI could only “answer with a fruitful, complete exercise.” Moreover, any person who was left out could still approach after the objection window had closed and until the finalisation of the list. 

Is the timing impractical?

Petitioners raised concerns about the timing of the SIR just months ahead of elections. Singhvi noted that the 2003 revision cited by the ECI was carried out well in advance of the 2004 elections. In contrast, the current SIR was announced in late June 2025 with a 90-day timeline. The Bench concurred with the impracticality of the timing, suggesting that the exercise need not be linked to the state elections. 

Sibal flagged the logistical difficulty of collecting documents at this scale. “Practically, is it possible to ask for birth certificates in 90 days?” He also highlighted the challenge of reaching Bihar’s migrant population. “An officer will have to go to your house,” he said. “There are one crore migrants in Bihar.” 

The ECI denied any intention to interfere with the elections. Dwivedi said the process could be paused or stopped at any time. He suggested that the Bench let the Commission continue the process “as it is”, and pause it later if required. He added that this SIR was the first step in a nationwide exercise.

He defended the exercise by citing demographic shifts: over one crore deaths and 70 lakh migrations in Bihar since 2003. He clarified that names from the 2005 roll were also being included. “Each one of them is to be approached and the form is filled up by us,” he said. For those with parents already on the roll, lighter proof would suffice.

What did the Bench say?

At the close of the hearing, Justice Dhulia observed that “an important question has been raised in these petitions, which goes to the root of the democratic process of our country. The question is of the right to vote.”

The Bench outlined three central issues for adjudication:

1. Whether the ECI had the authority to undertake the SIR in its present form;
2. Whether the procedure followed was consistent with the law; and
3. Whether the timeline was too compressed, especially given the upcoming Bihar elections.

The Court recorded that the ECI will not publish the draft list on 1 August and urged the Commission to consider Aadhaar, voter ID and ration card as valid supporting documents. It directed that the ECI file counter affidavits in a week and the petitioners to file rejoinders a week after that. The matter will be heard next on 28 July 2025.