Special Revision of Bihar Electoral Roll Violates Law, Allege Petitioners in SC

The Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Joymalya Bagchi took up the matter.

Senior Advocates K.K. Venugopal and Rakesh Dwivedi appeared for the ECI, and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta joining via video conference.

Senior Advocates Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Kapil Sibal, and Abhishek Manu Singhvi led arguments for various petitioners including the Association for Protection of Civil Rights (ACPCR), PUCL, and RJD leader Manoj Jha.

Opening arguments, Sankaranarayanan explained that the Representation of People Act and the Rules permit only two types of voter list revisions; Summary and Intensive, but the ECI had suddenly introduced a “Special Intensive Revision” with no legal backing. “Everyone in Bihar, 7.9 crore people are now being subjected to this,” he argued.

He further contended that the process only accepts 11 documents for proof of citizenship, excluding Aadhaar and voter ID. “Even if you’ve voted in five elections, they won’t presume you’re a citizen unless you file a fresh form. If you don’t, you’ll be deleted from the roll,” Sankaranarayanan submitted.

The Bench questioned the ECI’s timing and the rationale behind the special exercise when annual Summary Revisions had been conducted regularly, including as recently as January 2025.

When Sankaranarayanan highlighted exemptions for certain privileged classes, judges, artists, sportspersons, Justice Dhulia remarked, “But aren’t they following what the Constitution mandates?”

Sankaranarayanan responded, “No, they are violating it on four levels.”

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for RJD's Manoj Jha, argued, “Before removing me from the voter roll, they must have some proof that I’m not a citizen. The burden cannot be placed on me. It is on them.”

Citing Bihar government data, Sibal said very few citizens possess the required documents, only 2.5% have passports and 14.71% have matriculation certificates. Aadhaar and voter ID, the most widely held documents, are excluded.

Additionally, Singhvi appearing for PUCL and KC Venugopal warned that “disenfranchising even one eligible voter strikes at democracy and the basic structure of the Constitution.” He argued that the ECI was conducting a citizenship inquiry, which is outside its mandate.

Justice Dhulia observed, “There’s no doubt this issue strikes at the root of democracy, voting rights.” He noted that the Court must examine the ECI’s power to conduct such an exercise, the procedure adopted, and the timing.

Advocate Vrinda Grover also appearing for one of the petitioners argued the revision was effectively a citizenship screening targeting the poor and marginalized. “How will orphans and transgenders produce these documents?” she asked, invoking Article 14’s guarantee of equality.

The Bench sought clarification on whether Aadhaar had been officially excluded as a valid identity document.

The ECI counsel said the process had not reached that stage yet.

As arguments continued, Justice Dhulia directed the ECI to respond on three key aspects: the legality of the exercise, the manner of its implementation, and its timing.

The matter will be heard in the post-lunch session.

About the Petitions

Multiple petitions have been filed, including one by Association for Democratic Reforms has challenged the ECI's order for being in violation of Articles 14, 19, 21, 325 and 326 of the Constitution of India as well as provisions of Representation of People’s Act, 1950 and Rule 21A of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. "The SIR order dated 24.06.2025 if not set aside, can arbitrarily and without due process disenfranchise lakhs of voters from electing their representatives, thereby disrupting free and fair elections and democracy in the country, which are part of basic structure of the Constitution", the plea states.

It is ADR's case that the documentation requirements of the directive, lack of due process as well as the unreasonably short timeline for the said Special Intensive Revision of Electoral Roll in Bihar make this exercise bound to result in removal of names of lakhs of genuine voters from electoral rolls leading to their disenfranchisement.

Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) MP, Manoj Jha has also approached the Supreme Court challenging the revision of electoral rolls in Bihar ahead of the 18th Assembly elections. Alleging that the process is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21, 325, and 326 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought urgent judicial intervention to prevent mass disenfranchisement, particularly of marginalized communities in the state.

The petition filed through AOR Fauzia Shakil seeks quashing of the ECI's June 24, 2025 order initiating the SIR, and its subsequent clarification dated June 30, 2025. Alternatively, Jha has prayed that the upcoming Bihar elections be conducted on the basis of existing electoral rolls, or that the Commission be directed to accept documents listed in Form 6 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, as valid proof of eligibility.

Notably, Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra has also approached the Supreme Court against the ECI orders on revision of Bihar's electoral rolls and sought a direction to restrain Election Commission of India from issuing similar orders for Special Intensive Revision of Electoral Roll in other states of the country as well. "The impugned SIR order requires the inclusion or retention of a voter's name in the electoral roll upon production of citizenship documents, including proof of citizenship of either or both the parents, failing which the voter is at risk of exclusion. This requirement is ultra vires Article 326 and introduces extraneous qualifications not contemplated by the Constitution or the RP Act 1950.", her plea states.

Politician Yogendra Yadav has also approached the Apex Court with a petition seeking urgent stay on the 24 June order mandating de novo voter roll preparation in Bihar. Yadav has submitted that the exercise will lead to disenfranchisement of a substantial chunk of voters in a State marred by poor documentation on account of illiteracy, poverty, migration and lack of resources.

Case Title: Association for Democratic Reforms & Ors. v. Election Commission of India