SC flags citizenship, timing, and due process as key concerns in Bihar voter list revision

The Supreme Court has allowed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to continue its Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar but marked out three critical concerns that the poll body must address — the question of voter citizenship, adherence to due process, and the timing of the revision exercise.

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi, hearing petitions against the ongoing revision, made it clear that the issue touches the very foundation of Indian democracy. “There is no question that this issue is an important one and goes to the very root of democracy and the right to vote,” the bench observed.

While recognising the ECI’s constitutional authority, the Court stressed that its actions are still open to judicial scrutiny — especially when they affect fundamental rights such as the right to vote.

Who decides citizenship? Not EC, says Court

The bench took particular exception to the EC’s efforts to verify citizenship, asserting that this responsibility lies exclusively with the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). Responding to EC’s counsel, senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, who defended the exclusion of Aadhaar as proof of citizenship, the Court noted: “Citizenship is an issue to be determined not by the Election Commission of India, but by the Ministry of Home Affairs.”

Dwivedi had argued that under Article 326 of the Constitution, the right to vote is based on adult suffrage, which presumes citizenship. But the Court pointed out that even if the EC had such intent, it had acted far too late in the day.

“If you wanted to ensure only citizens are enrolled, the process should have started much earlier,” the bench remarked.

Too close to polls? SC questions timing

Raising serious concerns about the revision’s timing — months ahead of elections in Bihar—the Court questioned whether such an exercise could disenfranchise existing voters who may not be able to appeal in time.
“Your decision to disenfranchise someone already on the rolls in 2025 would push them into an appeals process and deny them the right to vote in the upcoming elections,” Justice Bagchi cautioned.
Justice Dhulia added, “Even I may not be able to produce such documents on short notice. Look at the practicality. Look at the timeline.”

What about due process?

The Court also underscored the importance of due process. It questioned whether the intensive revision exercise would include safeguards such as prior notice and verbal hearings, as mandated under the Representation of People’s Act (RPA) for summary revisions.
“If a ‘summary revision’ calls for a verbal hearing before deletion, can an ‘intensive revision’ skip that safeguard?” Justice Dhulia asked.

Under current RPA rules, any proposed deletion—except in cases of confirmed death—requires the EC to serve a notice to the voter and offer a reasonable chance to respond.

Why not Aadhaar, voter ID, ration card? SC asks EC

In a key directive, the Court asked the EC to explain its rationale behind excluding Aadhaar, voter ID cards, and ration cards as valid documents in the ongoing revision. This could lead to an expansion of the current 11-document list — whose narrow scope has already triggered widespread confusion across Bihar.

The Court’s order comes amid rising anxiety in the state, where many residents claim Aadhaar is the only government ID they possess. As one petitioner’s counsel noted, “In village after village, people are asking — how do we get the documents the EC is now asking for?”

As the EC prepares its response, the apex court’s strong words serve as a reminder that transparency, timing, and fairness must remain at the heart of any electoral reform — especially when it affects millions of voters in a democracy’s most vital process.