New Delhi | The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Election Commission to consider Aadhaar, Voter ID and ration cards as valid documents during its ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, set to go to polls later this year.
Calling SIR a "constitutional mandate", Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi considered the submissions of senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for EC, and permitted the poll panel to continue with the exercise in Bihar with over 7 crore voters.
Terming the right to vote as an important right in a democratic country, it said, "We cannot stop a constitutional body from doing what it is supposed to do. Simultaneously, we will not let them do what they are not supposed to do."
The bench in its order further noted, "After hearing both sides, we are of the opinion that three questions are involved in this case. A, the very powers of the EC to undertake the exercise, B, the procedure and the manner in which the exercise is being undertaken, and C, the timing, including the timings given for preparation of draft electoral rolls, asking objections and making the final electoral roll, et cetera, which is very short, considering the fact that Bihar election are due in November 2025."
Underlining the need to hear the matter, the bench posted over 10 petitions challenging the drive on July 28.
The poll panel in the meantime was directed to file its response within a week following which the rejoinder from the petitioners could be filed a week thereafter.
The bench took on record the poll panel's statement that the list of 11 documents it had to consider for SIR was not exhaustive.
"Therefore, in our view, since the list is not exhaustive, it would be in the interest of justice if the ECI will also consider the following three documents, such as Aadhaar card, voter ID card, and ration card," the bench ordered.
The poll panel, represented by Dwivedi and senior advocates K K Venugopal and Maninder Singh, however, objected to this part of the order.
"We are not saying you have to. It is up to you to consider. We are saying it looks that way. They are genuine. If you have a good reason to discard then discard it. But give reasons," Justice Dhulia remarked.
The bench did not stay the EC's SIR for the petitioners did not pray for it at the moment.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for NGO Association for Democratic Reforms, challenged the legal basis of the EC's decision to undertake a SIR, which, he argued, is not recognized under the RP Act or its rules.
He called the SIR as an unprecedented, arbitrary process targeting those enrolled after 2003 and the cut-off being unjustified.
He also questioned the exclusion of widely held documents such as Aadhaar and Voter ID from the EC's list, pointing out these were recognised under existing electoral rules and relied upon in several public service domains.
The bench said the EC's exercise appeared constitutionally valid but acknowledged concerns about its timing and implementation.
It also cited Section 21(3) of the RP Act, which permits the poll panel to carry out a special revision "in such manner as it may think fit", reinforcing the panel's discretionary power.
Senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Shadan Farasat, Vrinda Grover, and others termed the approach of the poll panel as exclusionary and disproportionate affecting the poor.
Sibal cited Bihar government data indicating that only a small fraction of the population possesses the documents deemed acceptable by the poll panel, with just 2.5 per cent holding passports and under 15 per cent having matriculation certificates.
Grover said the process was "exclusionary rather than inclusionary" whereas Singhvi emphasised that disenfranchising even a single eligible voter undermined democratic integrity and violates the basic structure of the Constitution.
"Even the documents you are accepting," the bench told the ECI, "are ultimately based on Aadhaar... The contradiction in excluding a document which is deeply embedded in other accepted forms of identity."
Dwivedi maintained that Aadhaar could not be accepted as proof of citizenship and verifying one's credentials was the poll panel's responsibility under Article 326 of the Constitution.
The top court then questioned the rationale, pointing out that determination of citizenship fell in the domain of the Ministry of Home Affairs, not the poll panel.
During the hearing, the bench expressed reservations over the timing of the revision and asked, "Why is this being undertaken just months before elections, when the exercise could have been initiated much earlier?"
The bench went on, "If you are to check citizenship under SIR of electoral rolls in Bihar, then you should have acted early. It is a bit late."
The poll panel urged the bench to allow it to continue with the SIR process and assured that no final electoral roll would be published until the court takes a decision.
Dwivedi said the petitioners were not representing actual voters but were activists and legal professionals.
The bench observed the timing of the process was raising doubts and said, "We are not doubting your sincerity but there are perceptions. We are not thinking of stopping you because it is a constitutional mandate."
Dwivedi said 60 per cent of voters had verified their credentials and assured the court none of the voters' name would be removed from the electoral rolls without giving them a hearing.
The bench earlier said the drive went to the "root of democracy and power to vote" as it rejected the argument that the ECI did not have any power to carry it out.
The bench, in the meantime, rejected the submission of the petitioners' counsel that the EC did not have power to conduct any such exercise in Bihar for it was mandated under the Constitution and the last such exercise happened in 2003.
