Revision of Electoral Rolls in Bihar | Day 9: SC declines to modify interim order permitting Aadhaar as valid ID in SIR exercise

Petitioners seek an early hearing; flag upcoming elections in the state

At the outset, Justice Kant asked Dwivedi for an update on the current status of the exercise and how long it would take before the Court could assess how many voters had been excluded. Before Dwivedi could respond, Sankaranarayanan urged the Court to fix a date for hearing the substantive challenges in the case, highlighting that the ECI had initiated similar revisions in other states. He said that if a “prima facie perversion of constitutional scheme” was found, the Court must halt the process.

Sankaranarayanan added that out of 7.89 crore voters initially, 4.96 crore were automatically included in the draft roll. The estimated total of Aadhaar-linked electors was 6.84 crores. Justice Kant observed that it could be assumed that exclusions were taking place largely on account of the absence of documents.

Vrinda Grover stressed that the Bihar Assembly had to be constituted by 22 November; therefore, a closer hearing was crucial. She argued that the ECI’s manual was inconsistent with the Representation of Peoples Act, 1950 (ROPA). “Why should I as a citizen residing in Bihar, be denied the right to vote in this election due to an illegal exercise?” she asked.

Singhvi requested that the matter be taken up by the end of September. He signalled that the precedent set in Bihar would be followed nationwide. Justice Kant responded that the Court’s ruling would necessarily apply to other states, but added, “We cannot express any opinion in this way.”

Bhushan contended that the Commission was in “gross violation” of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 as well as the ECI manual. He complained that objections raised by voters were not being uploaded within 24 hours as required. Barely 30 percent of claims and objections are being made public.

The Bench responded that it would presume the ECI was aware of its obligations, but fixed 7 October for detailed arguments. To this, Bhushan pointed out that the final roll was due to be published on 1 October, leaving little time for corrective action. He submitted that if the Court found illegality, the exercise would have to be redone. Justice Kant assured that a schedule would be fixed.

Aadhaar’s status remains contested

Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay argued that Aadhaar was neither proof of age nor residence, prompting Justice Bagchi to question, “Then what is it proof of?”

Upadhyay insisted that Aadhaar could not be equated with the eleven other accepted documents, as it could also be issued to foreigners. Justice Kant clarified that Aadhaar had only been allowed as an interim measure, stating, “As an interim arrangement, we have allowed Aadhaar. Let our order remain.” 

Upadhyay urged modification of the earlier order, calling it disastrous. Justice Bagchi replied that whether it was disastrous or not was for the ECI to consider. Justice Kant emphasised that while citizens had the right to vote, forged documents could not confer such a right. “Drivers’ license, Aadhaar, many documents can be forged…Aadhaar is to be utilised to the extent law permits,” he said.

The Court rejected Upadhyay’s plea to modify its earlier order permitting Aadhaar to be used as one of the documents in the revision exercise.

Questions on data disclosure and voter support

The Bench discussed whether voters were receiving adequate support during the revision exercise. Justice Kant enquired about allegations that the State Legal Services Authority was not assisting electors as directed earlier. Sankaranarayanan suggested that the ECI revive its daily bulletins, which had been discontinued on 1 September, so that citizens could track claims filed after the Aadhaar order.

Dwivedi responded that the Commission was already submitting weekly reports and had other responsibilities to manage. Justice Bagchi, however, pressed further, asking the ECI to disclose the total number of objections received.

The Court recorded ECI’s assurance to continue publishing weekly reports. The judges also directed the parties to file short written submissions by 7 October, when the case will be heard next.