.webp)
The Supreme Court on Thursday expressed "serious doubts" over the Election Commission’s plan to conduct a ‘special intensive revision’ of Bihar’s electoral rolls just months before the 2025 Assembly election. The hearing saw the court question the poll panel on the legality, procedure, and timing of the exercise. The case was brought by multiple petitioners, including the Association for Democratic Reforms and Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra. The next hearing has been scheduled for July 28.
The bench, comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymala Bagchi, made it clear that the issue was not with the nature of the revision, but its timing. “Your exercise is not the problem... it is the timing. We have serious doubts if you can manage this exercise. With such a big population being subjected to this ‘intensive review’, is it possible to link this to the forthcoming election?” the apex court asked.
The top court also questioned the very legality of the move. “There is either ‘summary revision’ or ‘intensive revision’. Where is this ‘special intensive revision’ under the law?” the judges asked, referring to the Representation of the People Act.
A key concern raised was the possibility of voters being disenfranchised close to polling day, with limited or no opportunity to appeal. Justice Dhulia pointed out, “A person will be disenfranchised ahead of the election and s/he won’t have the time to defend the exclusion before voting.” He added that once the revised electoral roll is finalised, courts typically do not intervene. “Which means a disenfranchised person will lack the option to challenge it before the election.”
The Supreme Court flagged the Election Commission’s decision to exclude Aadhaar cards from the list of accepted identity documents for the voter re-verification exercise as a major concern. Observing that the entire exercise hinges on establishing identity, the bench remarked, “We feel Aadhaar should have been there,” noting the apparent contradiction in its exclusion.
Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the EC, defended the move by stating that Aadhaar is not proof of citizenship and can also be issued to foreign nationals. However, the bench remained skeptical, especially after learning that documents like caste certificates often linked to Aadhaar were being accepted. “How can you accept caste certificates which are based on Aadhaar, but reject Aadhaar itself?” the court asked pointedly.
Dwivedi justified the need for the voter list overhaul by citing population changes. “Some petitions say around 1.1 crore persons have died and another 70 lakh have migrated. That itself makes a case for intensive revision,”*l he said. He also assured the court that individuals whose names are removed from the list will be given an opportunity to respond.
The petitioners argued that the revision disproportionately targets long-time voters and vulnerable sections. Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayan called the exercise “arbitrary” and “discriminatory”, stating that it forces voters registered for over a decade to re-verify without allowing commonly used documents like Aadhaar or even voter ID cards. “They will accept only 11 documents... they said they won’t even consider their own voter ID card and they are even asking documents to verify one’s parents,” he told the court.
He pointed out that ten major elections, five general and five state, had taken place since the last revision in 2003, and questioned the urgency now, with elections approaching.
Senior advocate Vrinda Grover, also representing a petitioner, warned that the revision could disenfranchise marginalised groups. “This is not an ordinary exercise... it is designed to exclude the poor, the migrant labourer, and vulnerable sections of society.”
Opposition parties, including the Congress and the RJD, have echoed these fears, accusing the EC of attempting to manipulate the voter base ahead of the polls.
The court remarked that Aadhaar, ration cards, and voter ID cards should be considered valid for the verification process.
The bench also asked the EC to clearly explain three key issues that include - Under what legal provision is the ‘special intensive revision’ being conducted?; What is the validity and fairness of the review process ; Why has the exercise been timed just months before the Bihar Assembly election?
The Supreme Court however refused to stay the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar. The court directed the ECI to file its counter affidavit by July 21, with rejoinders due by July 28, the date of the next hearing.
