On Thursday (July 10, 2025), the Supreme Court asked the Indian Election Commission (ECI) in the interest of justice to consider the Aadhaar card, voter photographic identification card (EPIC) and allocation card as evidence for registration of voters in the ongoing intensive revision (Sir) of electronic roles in Bihar.
Also read: Bihar Voter List Row Heard at the Supreme Court | most important
“The Indian Election Commission has pointed out that there are 11 documents to verify voters, but the list is not exhausting. Therefore, in our Prima facie view, because the list is not in the interest of justice to consider Aadhaar, Epic, issued by ECI itself and assignment card,” the court recorded in short order.
The bench of the judges Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joylyia Bagchi allowed Sir to “continue” in Bihar. It did not accept any temporary order of stay. The petitioners also did not seek to freeze the SIR exercise because the court stated the case for hearing another 28th July before the publication of the election role in August.
The Court said that his judicial review would focus on the power to perform this exercise, the way he was performed, and the chosen timing of a process that “is very short”. This indicated that the nature of the Bihar revision seemed to be vague, neither “summary” nor “special”, as categorized under Section 21 of the 1950 People Act.
“This problem is very important. These are the roots of our democracy itself. It’s about the right to vote,” said Dhulia.
ECI protested against Aadhaar and said it was only a document on identity authentication and not citizenship. Aadhaar was also published non-citizens who normally lived on the spot.
“The Aadhaar Law clearly states that this is not evidence of citizenship. ECI cannot raise the status of Aadhaar,” the head of the Rrakesh Dwivedi attorney for ECI faced.
Editorial | Careful curator: on Bihar’s special intensive revision of electoral roles
However, the justice of Dhulia said that Aadhaar was one of the primary documents of identity and Sir in fact showed the identity of a person who wanted to exercise his voting right.
“If I want a caste certificate, I will show my Aadhaar. Document as Aadhaar, considered basic to obtain other documents, is not part of 11 documents? CASTE Certificate is one of the documents between 11, but not Aadhaar?
Justice Bagchi agreed that none of the 11 documents reported in the announcement of June 24 were for citizenship.
“Everyone aims to prove your identity. You (ECI) are opposed to the integration of Aadhaar (ECI), you can do your job, but do it in accordance with the mandate of law. Act, law on representation of people, allows Aadhaar,” said Bagchi, represented by older advocates of KK Venugopal and Rrakesh Dwidi.
Mr. Dwivedi repeatedly urged the court to observe in his order that he would be left to “discretion” ECI to accept Aadhaar, ID or ration card. However, the justice of Dhulia said that the order is abundantly clear. “It is to consider accepting these three documents for ECI,” said Dhulia.
The ECI advisor said that Sir in Bihar was necessary because the last intense view of the voters’ list was made in 2003. He said 60% or 5.5 crore list, which has already been filled and recorded a network on ECI.
“For the first time in history, we created the Net ECI, where the documents would be recorded. This drive may not be repeated, except for adding names,” Mr. Dwivedi said.
The petitioners, represented by higher defenders of chapels Sibal, Am Singhvi, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Shadan Fararat and Vrinda Grover, said Sir was a “civic screening”, especially vulnerable groups, in the guise of voters registration. They argued that ECI had no jurisdiction to find out citizenship that the work was the work of the Ministry of the Interior.
“A small, low -level officer ECI, as well as a BLO, finds out citizenship. He decides to citizenship India,” Sibal said.
Sibal, who quoted Bihar’s government survey, said 87% of the population had Aadhaar, while only 14% had a certificate of registry and 2% had passports. “This means a substantial part of the reproduction of the risk of the population, although it has Aadhaar. The burden suddenly dropped to a citizen to prove that she was really a citizen,” he said.
Justice Bagchi raised questions about the strict terms of the Sir process. “You say that within 30 days citizens have to do it and the next 30 days must do it … The timing is very short … Why is Sir so focused on choices?” he asked. He asked if there was an opportunity or a mechanism for people omitted from an election role to be heard or appeal.
Mr Singhvi stated that the EC could not provoke powers pursuant to Section 21 (3) of the Act of 1950 or Article 324 of the Constitution without a valid “reason or base”. Sir, claimed, violated the registration of the 1960 voters.
“These powers cannot certainly be used to sweep equal conditions before the elections by breaking off voters in Bihar who voted in at least five elections since January 2003 … Singhvi said,” Singhvi said.
He referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Lal Babu Hussein vs an electoral registration clerk who decided that a person who has already been mentioned in an election role cannot be re -established.
Mr. Sankaranyanan asked why Sir, who was to be implemented nationwide, began in Bihar before the elections of the assembly scheduled for November.
Published – 10 July 2025 17:09
