Bihar SIR: ECI Defends Special Revision as Lawful ‘Purification Exercise’ before Supreme Court

The Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard arguments from both sides, as petitioners alleged that 65 lakh voters had been excluded and questioned the rejection of Aadhaar as proof.

The ECI, represented by Senior Advocates Rakesh Dwivedi and Maninder Singh called these claims exaggerated and misleading.

“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.

The Commission explained that of Bihar’s 7.9 crore registered voters, 7.24 crore had already submitted forms. Preliminary figures showed 22 lakh voters were confirmed dead, 36 lakh had shifted to other states, and 7 lakh had enrolled elsewhere, categories that do not amount to wrongful deletion. Dwivedi stressed that voters on the 2003 roll and their adult children did not need to file new proofs, significantly reducing the compliance burden.

“The only grey area is the shifted population,” Justice Kant observed. However, the Court stressed that voters have a right to know the basis of their inclusion or exclusion. Justice Kant said that deciding on the inclusion or exclusion of citizens and non-citizens in the electoral rolls squarely falls within the jurisdiction of the Election Commission of India (ECI).

The Court also rejected the contention that most people in Bihar lack the documents sought by the ECI as proof during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR).

Responding to claims that the enumeration form introduced 11 new documents without parliamentary approval, the ECI argued that these were lawful identification options provided to assist voters, not mandatory requirements. Aadhaar and ration cards, while accepted as supporting documents, could not be treated as conclusive proof of citizenship under the Aadhaar Act and existing law.

On the issue of transparency, Dwivedi denied allegations that the ECI had withheld data. “Lists have been shared with Block Level Officers. The claim that voters must approach political parties to check their names is false,” he said. The Commission also maintained that searchable rolls had been modified only to comply with data security considerations.

The Bench observed that the dispute involved a “trust deficiency” and sought clarity on whether the challenge was to the initiation of the SIR itself or to specific procedural aspects.

Justice Kant noted that the purpose of an intensive revision was precisely to detect and remove ineligible names, including deceased persons, from the rolls.

When petitioner appearing in person, Yogendra Singh Yadav presented two voters allegedly declared dead, Justice Bagchi remarked that such errors could be inadvertent and corrected promptly. Justice Kant remarked, “We are proud our citizens come to the Supreme Court." Yadav called the SIR “the largest disenfranchisement exercise in world history,” claiming exclusions could cross one crore.

Dwivedi assured the Court that remedial measures were in place and urged that the process not be stalled.

Advocate Vrinda Grover and Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Gopal Sankarnarayanan and Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for various petitioners, questioned the legal basis of the SIR, its timing, and the rejection of Aadhaar as proof.

However, the ECI maintained that its actions were within its constitutional powers under Article 324 and essential for free and fair elections.

Bhushan, representing the Association for Democratic Reforms, accused the ECI of opacity. He said the searchable draft roll was taken offline on August 4, forcing voters to rely on political party agents for access. He also alleged that Block Level Officers (BLOs) had marked voters as “recommended” or “not recommended” without transparency.

Singhvi termed the exercise “deletion disguised as non-inclusion” and argued that the ECI lacked jurisdiction to determine citizenship. “From 2003 to 2025, there’s a presumptive exclusion unless you prove citizenship by their standard. This cannot be done two months before elections,” he said, seeking interim relief.

Grover argued that the ECI’s document list and enumeration form were ultra vires, encroaching on Parliament’s exclusive rule-making powers under Section 28 of the Representation of the People Act. She said migrant workers were particularly affected, with many unable to submit forms.

The Court will continue hearing the matter on Wednesday (August 13).