The Supreme Court on Thursday posed a series of sharp questions to the Election Commission of India (ECI) over its decision to carry out a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar just months ahead of the upcoming assembly elections.
A bench hearing a batch of petitions challenging the exercise called upon the poll panel to explain why the revision was being conducted so close to elections, and why Aadhaar cards had been excluded as valid documents during the process.
“Why connect the Special Intensive Revision in Bihar to the upcoming assembly elections in November? Why can’t such exercises be conducted irrespective of election timelines?” the bench asked, questioning the apparent political timing of the move.
The court also took note of the exclusion of Aadhaar cards from the verification process. “Why is Aadhaar excluded from the Bihar SIR?” the bench asked. In response, the ECI submitted that “Aadhaar is not a proof of citizenship.”
The court further remarked, “If you are to check citizenship under the SIR of electoral rolls in Bihar, then you should have acted early. It is a bit late.”
Facing scrutiny, the poll panel defended the revision exercise, stating it was essential to regularly update the electoral rolls to include eligible voters and remove ineligible names. Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for one of the petitioners, acknowledged that electoral roll revisions are permissible under the Representation of the People Act but raised concerns over the current implementation.
At least ten petitions have been filed against the ongoing revision, including those by political leaders and parties such as Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra. Critics have labelled the exercise “arbitrary” and “unconstitutional”, arguing that key documents like voter ID and Aadhaar cards are being disregarded during the process.
The petitioners further contended that there is “no legal basis” for the revision and alleged that guidelines allow certain classes of people to be exempt, raising questions about its fairness.
The EC maintained that a similar SIR was last conducted in 2003 and that the current exercise adheres to constitutional mandates. However, the Supreme Court, while not objecting to the general principle of updating voter rolls, questioned the timing and transparency of the move, especially in an election year.
The matter remains under hearing.
