Bihar Electoral Roll Hearing: Supreme Court Asks ECI, Why Now?

The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned the Election Commission of India (ECI) for conducting its Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Bihar’s electoral rolls just a few months before Assembly elections in the state.

“Why it is being conducted ahead of an election scheduled for November? Can you conduct the revision but not count it in the November elections?” asked Justice Joymalya Bagchi, who sat on the bench with Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia.

Justice Bagchi asked the ECI whether the process could not have been conducted independently of the electoral timeline.

The apex court was hearing an urgent batch of writ petitions that challenge the ECI’s June 24 order for a SIR of electoral rolls in Bihar, which was initially to be concluded in about a month. The bench was hearing more than five petitions, including those filed by opposition leaders such as Trinamool Congress Member of Parliament Mahua Moitra, civic groups like Association for Democratic Reforms and social activist and politician Yogendra Yadav.

During the hearing, the petitioners represented by Senior Counsels Kapil Sibal, A. M. Singhvi, and others argued that the ECI’s order was ultra vires and could disenfranchise the most marginalised voters in India’s 12th most populous state.

Describing the ECI’s timeline for the SIR as “impossible,” Sibal, who represents Rashtriya Janata Dal Member of Parliament Manoj K Jha and others, said that “nearly four crore voters”—almost half of Bihar’s population—were required to submit documents such as their father and mother’s birth certificates to the ECI by July 25.

To this, Singhvi added, “If by July 25 you don’t submit the documents, you will be out,” thus highlighting how the strict deadline could mean qualified voters might be struck off the rolls. He argued that the ECI’s SIR exercise was a proxy for conducting a citizenship screening, for which the ECI was not the correct authority.

While the bench contended that the ECI would have to check citizenship as it was the fundamental criteria for voter enrolment, it added that a final check of citizenship was the MEA’s prerogative.

The seniors pointed out that the ECI had restricted the documents which could be submitted and left out national identity papers such as Aadhaar, MG-NREGA cards and Voter IDs. “For ten years this country has gone crazy saying Aadhaar, Aadhaar, and now you won’t accept it for identification?” he said, adding that it was interesting that the ECI would also not accept the Voter ID card.

“Once I am on the voter rolls, the burden is on the them [ECI] to prove why I am liable to be struck off. Not on me,” Singhvi argued. “This is not an exercise of inclusion but one of exclusion,” added Sibal.

Lawyers for the ADR pointed out that the criteria for acceptable documents was exclusionary in itself: “What about orphans? What about marginalised people who don’t have birth certificates?”

The ECI, represented by senior advocates Rakesh Dwivedi and K K Venugopal, took exception to the petitioners’ argument that the ECI did not have the authority to conduct the SIR. “If the election commission is not the one to prepare rolls then we will have to find a body that is,” he said, adding that he took strong exception to the petitioners’ argument.

“This is an argument but not your strongest, Mr Dwivedi,” the bench pointed out.

The ECI said that the petitioners had come to court before the exercise had even begun. “Let the cake bake at least,” he argued in court. To this, the bench replied, “But they (the petitioners) are saying you baked the cake in January already!”

The bench was pointing to the petitioners’ arguments that the ECI had conducted summary revisions in Bihar in January 2025, which would make the SIR exercise infructuous.

Dwivedi dismissed the argument, saying those were “only” summary polls and that over 57 per cent of enumeration forms—about 4.54 crore of them—have already been collected, with nearly 98 per cent distributed ahead of the cut‑off date.

It had earlier been reported that the ECI field officials had made quick progress in collecting more than 83 lakh forms in a single day, and had projected that the SIR exercise would likely conclude well before the July 25 deadline.

The bench rose for lunch at 1:30 pm and the hearing will continue with the ECI’s arguments in the second half of the day.

The bench appears to be scrutinising the SIR’s timing, given the upcoming assembly elections in Bihar, and its procedural fairness

However, it remains to be seen if the judges will also take on the petitioners’ arguments that the SIR is violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.