“Why is Aadhaar not being accepted?” the Supreme Court asked the Election Commission of India (EC) on Wednesday while hearing a batch of petitions challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls ahead of the Bihar Assembly elections.
The question struck at the heart of growing concerns that the SIR—meant to clean up the voter list—is being used to unfairly demand proof of citizenship from voters, especially the poor and marginalised. The court was particularly critical of the EC’s decision to exclude widely-used identity documents like Aadhaar, ration cards, and even voter ID cards from the list of accepted documents in the revision process.
“If you have a good reason to discard Aadhaar (as an acceptable document), you do it—give reasons,” the bench told the EC, as it acknowledged that the Aadhaar is often the foundational document for many other IDs.
Though the court appreciated the EC’s intent behind conducting the SIR, it was hesitant to halt the process altogether. However, SC raised serious concerns about the way it was being conducted—particularly the timing, and how closely it was tied to the upcoming Bihar elections.
“We are not stopping you. Do your work, but do it as mandated by the law,” the bench said.
During the hearing on July 10, the Supreme Court said the petitions raised “important questions which goes to the very root of the functioning of democracy in the country – the right to vote.” It flagged three issues, asking the Election Commission to respond by July 21.
- Is the Election Commission empowered to undertake the exercise;
- The procedure and the manner in which the exercise is being undertaken, and;
- The timing, including the timings given for the preparation of the draft electoral roll.
The matter will be heard next on July 28.
What is the SIR and why is it causing alarm?
The Special Intensive Revision of Bihar’s voter list—underway for the first time since 2003—is meant to weed out duplicate entries, migrants, and deceased voters. But critics say the process is far from routine.
Multiple petitions before the Supreme Court argue that the SIR is “arbitrary,” “absurd,” and “unconstitutional.” One of the biggest red flags? Even verified voters whose names already exist in the 2003 “Mother Roll” must re-submit proof of citizenship through Enumeration Forms and fresh documents. Yet, Aadhaar, ration cards, and voter IDs—documents held by millions—are not accepted.
Petitioners, including MPs like Manoj Jha, Supriya Sule, Mahua Moitra, Yogendra Yadav, KC Venugopal, and organisations like the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), argue that this will lead to the mass deletion of genuine voters—many of whom may be unable to meet the document demands in the short window provided.
Among them, at least two MPs—Mahua Moitra and Thol Thirumavalavan—have challenged the SIR to “preempt” similar disenfranchisement in West Bengal and Tamil Nadu, which are scheduled to go to polls next year.
BJP leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay has also filed a plea. However, he supports the SIR saying it’s the government and poll panel’s “duty” to conduct Special Intensive Revisions of voter lists and “give a strong message” that India “is determined to fight against illegal infiltration”.
“Executive action should be taken to warn corrupt people who help infiltrators that betrayal of public trust will no longer be tolerated”, Upadhyay’s plea before the Supreme Court states.
A recent BOOM report highlighted how voters—some of whom have been casting their ballots for decades—are now at risk of being excluded from the rolls.
Is this a citizenship test disguised as a voter list clean-up?
This is the question at the heart of the petitions. Several lawyers and lawmakers argue that the SIR is essentially a backdoor attempt at creating a National Register of Citizens (NRC)—something that has already sparked controversy in Assam.
“This is actually an exercise to do citizenship screening,” senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi told the court.
One of the pleas—filed by the Association of Democratic Reforms (ADR)—suggested that the “ECI has shifted the onus of being on the voters’ list from the State to citizens.” Senior advocate Kapil Sibal supported this view, saying it should be the state’s responsibility to prove that someone is not a citizen—not the other way around.
However, this burden falls heaviest on Bihar’s poor, marginalised communities, and the migrants - many of whom don’t have access to the EC’s list of “acceptable” documents. According to lawyers, more than 87 per cent of Bihar’s population has Aadhaar cards. So why isn’t that enough?
The EC defended its decision by stating that Aadhaar is “not proof of citizenship”. But the court pushed back, saying only the government can decide someone’s citizenship through proper legal channels—and that too under the jurisdiction of the Home Ministry, not the Election Commission.
However, EC said citizenship was one of the requisites to vote in India, as such, Aadhar, which is not a “proof of citizenship” could not be an acceptable document.
“If citizenship is a mandate under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, you can conduct this exercise independent of the election process,” the court told the EC. “You can do this exercise to see non-citizens are not on the rolls,” the court said, but made it clear that citizenship determination should not be conflated with election preparations.
Also Read: Locked For Years: A New Life For Assam Residents As They Finally Get Aadhaar Cards
Can the EC finish the SIR on time?
Another major concern is the timeline. The EC has given itself just 90 days to complete the SIR—a deadline petitioners say is unrealistic, especially in a state like Bihar.
The Supreme Court, too, was sceptical. “You should’ve acted earlier. Isn’t it too late now for that?” the bench asked. “There is nothing wrong in having this intensive process so that non-citizens don’t remain on rolls—but it should be de hors (independent of) this election which is coming up.”
