Guwahati: The Supreme Court on Wednesday observed that the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Bihar’s electoral rolls has brought to light a clash between the Election Commission of India’s authority over elections and citizens’ constitutional right to vote.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi, part of the Bench headed by Justice Surya Kant, heard petitions challenging the SIR ahead of the November Assembly elections, noting that poll-bound Bihar finds itself between Article 324, which empowers the Election Commission to oversee elections, and Article 326, which guarantees adult suffrage.
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
Senior advocates A.M. Singhvi and Gopal Sankaranarayanan argued that the EC’s process of sending pre-filled enumeration forms and subsequently deleting 65 lakh voters from the rolls without prior inquiry or physical hearing was a “casual way of doing away with citizens’ right to vote.” Sankaranarayanan emphasized that the Representation of the People Act provides strict procedures for removal from electoral rolls, which cannot be bypassed. “An elector has a statutory right to remain in the electoral roll. Removal requires a formal inquiry, even for a single voter,” he said, citing the Supreme Court principle protecting the ‘little man’ as laid down by Justice Krishna Iyer.
Justice Bagchi questioned the extent of the EC’s discretionary powers under Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, which allows the Commission to conduct a “special revision” in “such manner as it may think fit.” Sankaranarayanan responded that the provision is limited to revising electoral rolls for a single constituency or part thereof under exceptional circumstances and cannot justify a statewide revision.
The judge observed that special revision procedures are intended for extraordinary events, such as natural disasters, while ordinary revisions must follow the Registration of Electors Rules.
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
The court also debated whether allowing citizens to submit any of 11 ‘indicative’ documents to prove citizenship could be considered voter-inclusive. Singhvi argued that the list was largely ineffective, as most documents were irrelevant or rare in Bihar.
Only 1% of residents hold a passport, most women lack matriculation certificates, and Aadhaar, held by 87% of the population, was not accepted. Justice Kant noted that while many central civil service employees come from Bihar, the focus should be on the poor and marginalized in rural, flood-prone areas. Singhvi said the EC’s documents had “only exclusionary value.”
Advocates Singhvi and Prashant Bhushan further alleged that the SIR has already resulted in the de facto deletion of electors. Bhushan claimed the EC acted hastily, refused to accept Aadhaar or voter ID cards, did not publish the names of the 65 lakh deleted voters, or provide reasons for their exclusion, and removed the draft roll search mechanism following a press conference by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi.
Singhvi added that the policy appeared aimed at presumptively excluding voters since 2003 and shifting the burden onto citizens to prove their eligibility. The Supreme Court has yet to deliver its judgment on the petitions challenging the SIR.