No Voter Came Forward To Challenge Exclusion Despite Apprehensions Of Mass Deletions After Bihar SIR : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard extensive arguments on the legality and process of the Electoral Roll Special Intensive Revision (SIR).

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, during the hearing, observed that despite the widespread apprehension voiced earlier about mass exclusions in Bihar, not a single voter had come forward to challenge a deletion. This suggested that the deletions from the Bihar roll on grounds of death, migration and duplication were correctly done, the bench surmised.

The bench was hearing petitions filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms and other petitioners, including political leaders and civil society organisations, questioning the legality of the SIR process. It may be noted that the bench was not hearing any State-specific issue and was hearing the broader legal questions. The petitions related to Kerala, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal have been posted to future dates, seeking the ECI's response.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal(for RJD MP Manoj Jha) and Advocate Prashant Bhushan(for ADR) led the arguments for the petitioners.

None came forward to say they were wrongly excluded from Bihar rolls : Bench

At one point during the hearing, the CJI recalled the Court's earlier intervention when concerns were raised that lakhs of voters in Bihar were about to be struck off the rolls. The Court had then directed paralegal volunteers to assist voters in filing appeals against deletions. Yet, not even a single appeal was filed by any voter.

"We experienced a strange thing in Bihar. We kept on directing, sent our paralegal volunteers...nobody came forward to say I have been excluded,” the CJI observed.

"Initially impression given about Bihar was lakhs were about to be deleted...we were also apprehensive...what happened ultimately?" CJI asked.

Justice Bagchi added that although deletions had indeed occurred, “we do not find a degree of impact on the ground” and there had been “no challenge by individual voters”.

The Bench also emphasised that widespread media reporting had ensured people even in remote areas were aware of the process. “Can someone say for that process that I was not aware?” the CJI asked.

The Court made these comments in the context of the petitioners' claim that the SIR was inherently exclusionary.

Process Is Unconstitutional and Burdens Electors : Petitioners

Sibal opened his arguments by stating that what the Court decides in this case will shape the “fate of democracy in India”.

He argued that any exclusionary exercise in electoral administration after independence was unconstitutional, since the entire purpose of India's democratic framework was to expand inclusion.

Sibal's key objections were:

• Requiring electors to fill enumeration forms transfers the documentation burden onto citizens instead of the Election Commission.

• Millions of voters, especially illiterate or rural residents, would not be able to complete forms and risked wrongful deletion.

• BLOs (Booth Level Officers) were being allowed to “suspect” citizenship and seek documents, something he argued was beyond their power.

• Many voters shown as “dead” were in fact alive, indicating erroneous inputs and flawed verification.

He emphasised that an exercise of this nature has never been undertaken in the history of India.

Sibal said the Electoral Registration Officer must rely on house-to-house verification by BLOs, not reverse the burden onto electors. “How can millions produce certificates?” he asked, pressing that Aadhaar showing birth and residence should suffice.

EC has power to undertake SIR : Bench

Justice Bagchi observed during the process that the Election Commission of India has the power to carry out a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls as per Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. It may be noted that on earlier occasions as well, the bench has made similar observations.

Sibal clarified the petitioners were not disputing the Election Commission's power under the Representation of the People Act but were challenging the reasonableness of the process.

Responding to Sibal's concern about citizenship inquiries, Justice Bagchi remarked that BLOs were not deciding citizenship but verifying basic facts such as date and place of birth.

The Bench also pointed out it had directed that Aadhaar be included as one of the acceptable documents precisely because many voters would not possess  certificates initially notified by the ECI.

Sibal insisted that the Election Commission's inherent powers could not extend to requiring every elector to establish citizenship. “If somebody else objects, there is a process. But if a BLO objects, what is the process?” he asked.

He argued that there was no effective post-decision hearing, nor evidence on record of notices being issued to voters whose names were flagged.

He further pointed to Assam, noting that the State's roll revision exercise does not require any enumeration form.

Bhushan added that Assam's distinct procedure stems from its Foreigners Tribunal system, and questioned whether the Election Commission anywhere in the country can determine citizenship without reference to a competent authority.

If intruders were given 'Aadhaar', should they be allowed to vote?

The bench also observed during the hearing that there might be situations of intruders securing Aadhaar cards on the basis of their long residence status. But should they be allowed to vote as well, if they are not Indian citizens otherwise.

"Aadhaar card is a creation of a statute to the extent it governs distribution of benefits etc., but just because a person has Aadhaar for availing some social welfare benefits.... Suppose some belong to neighbouring country.... Someone working as a labourer at construction site, etc and you give an aadhaar for availing ration, etc it is a part of our constitutional ethos... but just because he was given that, should he also be made a voter now?" CJI Kant asked.

As the hearing neared conclusion, Advocate Vrinda Grover submitted that she would address the issue of jurisdiction under Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act, and whether the SIR could be conducted in the present manner.

The matter will continue tomorrow.

 Case Title: ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ORS. Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA, W.P.(C) No. 640/2025 (and connected cases)