ECI Assures SC That Voter Claims and Objections in Bihar Will Be Considered Even After September 1 Deadline
Supreme Court heard pleas by RJD, AIMIM and ADR over Bihar voter rolls; ECI assures claims/objections not barred after September 1 and will be processed till last date of nominations;
Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi
The Supreme Court on Monday heard petitions by the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), AIMIM and ADR seeking an extension of the deadline for filing claims and objections in Bihar’s ongoing voter registration.
The Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi made it clear that the Election Commission of India (ECI) has already provided sufficient safeguards and stressed that claims and objections can continue to be filed even after the statutory deadline of September 1.
Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the ECI, informed the Court that 99.5% of Bihar’s 7.24 crore voters had already submitted documents. He clarified that most recent applications from political parties and voters were for deletion of names, not inclusion, which was unusual but part of the ongoing transparent process. He further contended that any claim or objection filed even after the September 1 deadline would still be considered and integrated into the electoral roll until the last date of nominations.
The Court recorded this stand, rejecting the suggestion that the process would shut down after September 1.
“Postponing the schedule would create an unending exercise,” Dwivedi submitted, adding that booth-level agents (BLA) had already been given exclusion lists with reasons, and the information was available online and through newspaper notices.
During the hearing, Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for ADR, argued that Aadhaar was not being accepted in the first stage of verification, despite the Court’s earlier order. He highlighted lack of transparency in the process, pointing out that forms submitted by voters were not being uploaded.
Justice Kant observed that a Court order cannot “enhance” the statutory status of Aadhaar, adding that whatever value law and prior judgments confer on it must be accepted. He also questioned why parties were placing disproportionate emphasis on Aadhaar alone.
Addressing the concerns raised by petitioners over transparency, the Bench observed that the real issue was a “trust deficit.”
To bridge this, the Court requested the Bihar Legal Services Authority (BLSA) to deploy paralegal volunteers to assist voters and political parties in filing claims and objections online, and to confidentially report to the District & Sessions Judges, with data collated at the State level.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for one of the petitioners, urged that Aadhaar be accepted for all 7.24 crore voters.
The Bench concluded by reiterating that the ECI’s procedure, as laid down in its manual, must be followed. Political parties and petitioners were directed to file affidavits responding to the ECI’s note.
The matter will now be heard again on September 8.
It is to be noted that on August 22, took note of the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) compliance with its earlier directions in the ongoing “Special Intensive Revision” of Bihar’s electoral rolls. It had clarified that Aadhaar, along with any of the 11 notified identity documents, can be furnished by electors seeking inclusion in Bihar’s electoral rolls.
During Singhvi’s submissions, Justice Bagchi noted that while Aadhaar-based requirements may have an exclusionary effect, the availability of a larger number of permissible documents “is actually voter-friendly” as it provides citizens multiple options to prove their eligibility.
Earlier, this week, the ECI had strongly defending the exercise as lawful, necessary and in public interest. “This is a purification exercise to ensure a clean and accurate voter list. Dead and shifted voters must be removed to maintain the integrity of the rolls. The process is transparent, and most voters need not submit fresh documents,” Dwivedi told the Court, adding that no political party or individual voter was before the Bench except public interest groups.
An Interlocutory Application had been filed by ADR on August 8, in the ongoing case concerning the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar, with serious concerns raised about the omission of over 65 lakh names from the draft rolls. The Apex Court had sought ECI's response.
On July 28, the Supreme Court reiterated its stance that it was not going to stay the SIR of electoral rolls in Bihar. "There should not be mass exclusion.. we want mass inclusion", a Justice Surya Kant led bench further told the Election Commission of India.
Recently, Association for Democratic Reforms told the Supreme Court of India that Election Commission of India has given no valid reason for exclusion of Aadhar, EPIC and Ration Card from the list of documents which can be submitted during the Special Intensive Revision of Electoral Rolls being carried out in Bihar.
Earlier, the ECI had told the Supreme Court that Aadhaar, Electoral Photo Identity Cards (EPIC), and ration cards cannot be accepted as valid proof of citizenship during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar. In a detailed affidavit filed in response to petitions challenging the revision drive, the Commission had emphasized that these documents lack legal sanctity for determining citizenship and thus cannot be relied upon to validate voter eligibility. The affidavit was submitted in a batch of petitions led by NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), marks a significant legal moment in the debate surrounding the intersection of identity documentation and electoral rights.
On July 10, the Apex Court had allowed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to proceed with its Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar but directed that documents like Aadhaar, EPIC voter ID cards, and ration cards should also be considered in the process.
Case Title: Association for Democratic Reforms & Ors v. Election Commission of India & Anr.
Mentioning Date: September 1, 2025
Bench: Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi