Electoral List Cannot Remain Static; It Must Be Revised: Supreme Court On Bihar's Special Intensive Revision By ECI

A Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter.

Senior Advocates Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Shadan Farasat, Kalyan Bandopadhyay, and P.C. Sen, and Advocate Prashant Bhushan appeared for the Petitioners. Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi appeared for the ECI.

Dr. Singhvi began by drawing attention to the ECI affidavit in the Jharkhand case of 2024, noting, “When they were also conducting a summary revision in Bihar… There are no Foreigner Tribunals here. In Assam at least people can approach them.” Justice Kant remarked, “Yes, they have to move the High Court but not a civil court.” Justice Bagchi observed, “We understand your argument on Aadhaar’s exclusionary aspect. But the point on the number of documents is actually voter friendly. Look at how many documents can be used to prove citizenship.” He followed up, “Your argument is that an enumeration form can be separate from the statutory form. We are asking whether, if the enumeration form includes Form 4, it would still comply with and support the rules?” Justice Kant added, “If all 11 documents are demanded, it goes against voters. But if only one document is required, then…”

Singhvi responded, maintaining that the test the ECI proposed was fundamentally exclusionary. He said, “This is exclusionary, and I will show how. The test they propose cuts people out. If you don’t own land, options 5, 6, and 7 are gone. Options 1 and 2 don’t exist. Residence certificates aren’t available. Passports are unrealistic. Now look at Form 6, it’s simply a self-declaration.” He highlighted that in Bihar, 65 lakh names were deleted “without notice, documents, or forms. X lakh shown as dead, Y as migrated, Z as duplicates. No such procedure exists in ROPA. Non-inclusion is just a polite term for de facto deletion.” Singhvi emphasised that while the ECI has statutory power to delete voters, it must follow its own rules: “Rules for voter deletion are clear, yet not followed… Bihar SIR is a first where ECI ignores its own norm. Such a crucial exercise can’t be rushed, we seek a stay.”

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing the Association for Democratic Reform (ADR), elaborated on the constitutional and statutory issues. He noted, “ECI has begun the process in West Bengal too, without any consultation. I appear for the State and for main petitioner ADR, which also has 5 voters. Four constitutional provisions on electoral rolls haven’t been addressed yet. The right to be on the roll is sacrosanct.” He added, “The Constitution guarantees my right to be registered as a voter. Electoral rolls can only reflect the disqualifications provided under the Constitution or by law. Disqualification relates to residence… Section 62 (right to vote) says except as expressly provided, every person on the electoral roll is entitled to vote. Once my name is on the roll, I’m statutorily entitled, a right that can even become constitutional.”

Sankaranarayanan argued that the ECI had effectively invented a new document requirement for 8 crore voters, stating, “Even if I’m in jail, I can’t be removed from the roll without due process… Here, the 65 lakh removed voters were not disqualified on any such grounds. The ECI has carried out mass exclusions… Who gave the ECI authority to do this?”

Justice Surya Kant then said, “But the electoral list cannot remain static. A one time exercise is only for preparing the original list and it must be revised.”

Sankaranarayanan further submitted, “The Act does not mention special intensive revision… Once electoral rolls are prescribed, they remain prescribed… This is not anything you could have embarked on. To start with. Forget Bihar, you could never do this. It’s historic… first time in history a special intensive revision has ever been done.”

Advocate Prashant Bhushan emphasised procedural fairness, noting that challenges to citizenship must follow Form 7, with an opportunity to respond, submitting, “If you want to remove someone, you must give notice stating why you suspect their citizenship and allow them to present documents. I say a self-declaration should be sufficient.” He detailed the practical impossibility of the SIR: “There are about 8 crore voters. In two districts, 10.6% and 12.6% of electors have been marked as ‘not recommended’ by BLOs. In some booths, over 90% are marked this way. In one constituency with 3 lakh voters, and only 20 working days, how is this possible?” He added that most voters lack documents and the 11 prescribed documents “are not proof of citizenship.”

Bhushan further alleged malafide intent on four grounds- the ECI opposed similar exercises previously, refused Aadhaar, ration cards, or EPIC as proof, refused to publish names of deleted voters with reasons, and removed searchable draft rolls “just one day after Rahul Gandhi’s press conference on Karnataka elections.” Justice Kant responded, “We are not aware of any such press conference,” while Justice Bagchi noted, “Publishing on the website is welcome as it improves accessibility, but the minimum statutory requirement is…” Bhushan replied, “If they have this data in electronic form and can upload it, why not do it? They admit they have exact reasons for deletion, why hide it? This shows malafide intent… They are insisting on carrying out this exercise when it is humanly impossible to do in such a short time… In the draft roll, 240 people are shown with the same address in one house.” Justice Kant observed, “240 people cannot be in one house.”

Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat submitted that deletions cannot begin with 65 lakh non-respondents. “The draft always has to be the existing roll. Otherwise, people can be excluded without… The beginning point can’t be 65 lakh people did not give forms so out they go. They have been illegally removed. They have to be brought back.” Justice Kant noted some entries might include deceased persons, to which Farasat replied, “According to High Court, they were alive till June.”

Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandopadhyay described the situation in Bengal, submitting, “Within 3 days, large number of electors have been deleted. 3 ladies wanted to commit suicide before High Court yesterday.” Justice Kant said it was difficult to examine individual claims, but indicated that broad principles applicable across states would guide the Court’s approach.

Senior Advocate P.C. Sen argued that the ECI had given no reasoning for the SIR and was relying on enumeration forms instead of door-to-door verification. Justice Kant acknowledged the practical challenges, observing, “Somebody has to find a way out also.”

The Bench concluded by stating that petitioners would be heard for another half hour tomorrow before the ECI responds.

Background

The petitions, filed by RJD MP Manoj Jha, Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), activist Yogendra Yadav, Trinamool MP Mahua Moitra, and former Bihar MLA Mujahid Alam, challenge the legality, timing, and process of the SIR. Moitra’s petition terms the exercise “illegal, unconstitutional, and ultra vires,” citing violations of Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 21, 325, and 326 of the Constitution, and the Representation of the People Act, 1950. During the hearing on July 10, 2025, the Supreme Court took note of the concerns raised over the electoral roll revision and observed, “An important question has been raised in these petitions before this Court, which goes to the very root of functioning of a democratic republic that is a country. The question is of the right to vote.” Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the ECI, had submitted, “Aadhaar card cannot be used as proof of citizenship...Each document has its limited purpose and is valid only for that. Aadhaar can be issued to non-citizens who are residents of India.”

On July 28, the Supreme Court refused to stay the publication of draft electoral rolls in poll-bound Bihar while hearing pleas challenging the Election Commission’s special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

The Election Commission in its counter affidavit in the Supreme Court, defending the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, asserts that the exercise is lawful, long overdue, and designed to cleanse the rolls of ineligible entries while ensuring the inclusion of all eligible citizens.

Cause Title: Cause Title: Association For Democratic Reforms & Ors. V. Election Commission of India (W.P.(C) No. 640/2025)