Supreme Court Continues Hearing on Bihar SIR Case: Focus on Voter Rights and Transparency
New Delhi, India – August 22, 2025 – The Supreme Court of India, in a significant hearing today, continued its scrutiny of petitions challenging the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in poll-bound Bihar. The bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, addressed concerns over the exclusion of approximately 65 lakh voters from the draft electoral roll published on August 1, 2025, emphasizing transparency and the protection of citizens’ voting rights ahead of the Bihar Assembly elections scheduled for November 2025. The case, which pits the ECI’s authority against allegations of mass voter disenfranchisement, has sparked intense debate, with the court directing political parties to assist voters in filing claims to rectify exclusions.
Background of the Bihar SIR Case
The SIR, initiated by the ECI on June 24, 2025, under Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, aims to ensure “clean voter rolls” by removing ineligible names due to urban migration, demographic shifts, and inaccuracies in existing rolls, which had not been intensively revised in nearly two decades. The ECI claims the process involved major political parties and over 1.5 lakh booth-level agents (BLAs), with 91.69% of voters submitting enumeration forms by July 2025. However, petitioners, including opposition leaders from the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), Congress, Communist Party of India (CPI), and organizations like the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), argue that the SIR risks arbitrary voter deletions, potentially disenfranchising millions, particularly Muslims, Dalits, and poor migrants, ahead of the crucial elections.
The draft electoral roll, published on August 1, 2025, excluded 65 lakh voters, prompting allegations of a “citizenship screening” exercise lacking transparency. The final roll is set for release on September 30, 2025, with a September 1 deadline for filing claims and objections. The Supreme Court’s interim order on August 14, 2025, directed the ECI to publish a searchable, district-level list of excluded voters with reasons for deletion, addressing concerns raised by senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Prashant Bhushan, and Gopal Sankaranarayanan.
Key Developments in Today’s Hearing
During the August 22 hearing, the Supreme Court focused on ensuring that excluded voters have adequate opportunities to reclaim their voting rights. Justice Kant orally directed the ECI to consider extending the September 1, 2025, deadline for claims and objections if there is an “overwhelming response” from affected voters. The ECI reported that 84,000 claims have been filed so far, with 741 resolved, and 2.53 lakh new voters, primarily those who turned 18, have been added, indicating robust public engagement.
Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing the ECI, emphasized the role of 1.6 lakh BLAs across 90,000 booths, noting that each agent can verify 10 names daily, potentially covering 16 lakh names in four to five days. He argued that the process is inclusive, with public notices allowing voters to submit Aadhaar cards alongside claims, as per the court’s August 14 directive. Dwivedi dismissed allegations of political motives, stating, “Nobody has been or will be excluded. Let us complete this exercise.”
Petitioners, represented by advocates Vrinda Grover and Prashant Bhushan, raised concerns about ground-level implementation. Grover argued that the SIR’s design is flawed, with voters being asked to file Form 6 declarations and provide one of 11 specified documents, despite the court’s suggestion to accept Aadhaar. Bhushan highlighted cases where voters, including 12 individuals mistakenly listed as deceased, faced hurdles in reinstatement due to lack of transparency. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the RJD, questioned the necessity of a fresh SIR after a January 2025 summary revision, arguing that the ECI lacks authority to determine citizenship, a role reserved for the Home Ministry.
Justice Bagchi framed the case as a “battle between Constitutional entitlement and Constitutional right,” balancing the ECI’s powers under Article 324 (superintendence of elections) against Article 326 (adult suffrage). The court reiterated its commitment to intervene in cases of “mass exclusion,” citing its August 14 order and the 1995 Lal Babu Hussainjudgment, which curbed the ECI’s attempts to declare voters non-citizens without credible evidence.
Contentions and Legal Arguments
Petitioners, including RJD MP Manoj Jha, CPI-ML’s Dipankar Bhattacharya, and activist Yogendra Yadav, argue that the SIR’s rapid timeline—30 days compared to a year-long census—risks errors and violates natural justice. They cite instances of voters being removed without prior notice or opportunity to be heard, with 65 lakh exclusions described by ADR as “the biggest disenfranchisement exercise in history.” Senior advocate A.M. Singhvi noted that ECI rules prohibit suo motu voter deletions in an election year, yet the SIR appears to bypass this safeguard.
The ECI countered that deletions follow due process, with prior notice, opportunities for hearings, and reasoned orders, as mandated by a two-tier appeal mechanism. It clarified that Aadhaar, ration cards, and Electoral Photo Identity Cards (EPIC) are not conclusive proof of citizenship, a stance the court upheld, with Justice Kant noting, “Aadhaar is not proof of citizenship, but its verification should be considered.” The ECI also argued that the SIR addresses long-standing complaints from political parties about voter list inaccuracies, with 23,557 claims and objections received post-draft publication.
Advocate Nizam Pasha, representing AIMIM MLA Akhtarul Iman, alleged that the SIR targets anti-incumbency voters, particularly youths, to favor the ruling coalition. The ECI dismissed these claims as politically motivated, asserting that the process is transparent and voter-friendly, with 11 documents accepted for verification compared to seven in Jharkhand’s earlier revision.
Broader Implications
The Bihar SIR case has ignited a national debate on electoral integrity and voter rights. Critics, including Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen, have warned of “serious errors” in the rushed process, with potential ripple effects across India if the SIR model is scaled up, as suggested by advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan. The exclusion of 65 lakh voters—roughly 10% of Bihar’s electorate—has raised fears of disenfranchising marginalized communities, prompting protests from opposition leaders like Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, and Akhilesh Yadav.
The Supreme Court’s interventions, including its push for Aadhaar inclusion and transparent voter lists, aim to balance the ECI’s authority with constitutional protections. The court’s August 14 order has been described as a “nudge” rather than a rebuke, aligning with its 1995 precedent that prioritized fair processes over arbitrary exclusions. However, petitioners argue that the ECI’s refusal to publish detailed reasons for deletions undermines transparency, a concern echoed by ADR’s interim application for booth-wise exclusion lists.
What’s Next?
The Supreme Court has scheduled the next hearing for September 8, 2025, allowing time for the ECI to process claims and objections. The court’s directive for political parties to assist voters underscores its focus on inclusivity, with Justice Kant emphasizing, “We intervened to protect their rights, and now we look to the representations by parties.” The ECI’s compliance with the August 14 order, including publishing searchable exclusion lists, will be a key focus, as will its response to extending the claims deadline.
As Bihar approaches its assembly elections, the SIR case remains a flashpoint, with implications for voter trust, electoral fairness, and the ECI’s credibility. The outcome could set a precedent for electoral roll revisions nationwide, shaping India’s democratic processes in an era of heightened scrutiny.
For More News Updates Follow www.tconews.in
