Bihar SIR | 'Publication Of Final Voters' List Won't Matter To Us If There's Illegality' : Supreme Court Adjourns Hearing Till Oct 7
Debby Jain
15 Sept 2025 3:01 PM IST
The Supreme Court on Monday (September 15) adjourned till October 7 the hearing of the petitions challenging the Election Commission of India's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar.
Although the petitioners sought for a hearing before October 1 - the date of publication of the final voters list - the bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi declined, pointing out that the Court is closing for a week for the Dussehra break on September 28.
The publication of the final voter list will not make any difference to the adjudication of the matter, the Court said, assuring the petitioners that if there is any illegality, it will intervene, regardless of the finalisation of the list.
"What difference will it (the final publication of the list) make to us? If we are satisfied there is some illegality, we can...," Justice Kant said. This was in response to the submissions made by Advocate Prashant Bhushan, for ADR, that the ECI was not following its own manuals and regulations in the SIR exercise. Bhushan alleged that the ECI was not uploading the objections received, despite the legal mandate.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan requested that the ECI be directed to publish the daily bulletin on the objections and claims. Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, for the ECI, submitted that the ECI was giving weekly updates, as giving daily updates during the arduous task of scrutinising the objections was not feasible. Justice Kant suggested that putting out information in the public domain will increase transparency. "To the extent you can bring in public domain what you have done...it will bring transparency," Justice Kant said. Justice Bagchi suggested that the ECI can put out the number of objections received. Though Sankaranarayanan requested that these observations be made part of the order, the bench did not do so.
Senior Advocate Dr AM Singhvi as well as Advocate Vrinda Grover, urged the Court to take up the matter for hearing on an earlier date. Grover submitted that the new Bihar assembly has to be constituted by November 22, which means that the elections will be notifed by the middle of October. Therefore, there is a very short time interval for an effective intervention, Grover submitted.
However, the bench stuck to its stance that the matter will be heard on October 7. Justice Kant said that it was the earliest non-miscellaneous day available after the reopening of the Courts.
The bench also considered an application filed by Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay seeking modification of the last week's order, which permitted the use of Aadhaar card as a "12th document" for the proof of identity in the SIR process. Claiming that there were "lakhs of Rohingyas and Bangladeshis in Bihar", Upadhyaya contended that allowing the use of Aadhaar card would be "disastrous". He contended that any body can get an Aadhaar card by merely staying in India for 182 days and it was neither a proof of citizenship nor residence.
Justice Kant however replied that any docuemnt can be forged. "Drivers' license, Aadhaar, many documents can be forged...Aadhaar is to be utilized to the extent law permits," Justice Kant said.
The bench however issued notice on Upadhyaya's application.
Developments so far
On July 10, the Court passed an order directing the ECI to consider Aadhaar card, ration card and the EPIC as documents for inclusion in the voters list. On July 28, the Court refused to stop the ECI from publishing draft electoral rolls for Bihar on August 1. But, it orally told the ECI to atleast consider Aadhaar Card and EPIC. A day later, the Court was told that 65 lakh persons are likely to be excluded from the draft electoral rolls. In response, it orally said that if there is mass exclusion, it will step in.
On August 6 (after the draft list was published), ADR filed an application alleging inter-alia that ECI had not disclosed details of the omitted 65 lakh voters. ECI filed its counter-affidavit in response.
On August 12, the petitioners opened arguments, contending inter-alia that the Bihar SIR was illegal and the onus of proving citizenship cannot be shifted on voters/electors. On August 13, referring to Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, the bench asked both sides whether ECI does not have residual power to conduct an exercise like Bihar SIR in a "manner it deemed fit". Insofar as the issue of West Bengal SIR initiation was raised, the bench said that the same will be dealt with later.
On August 14, the Court directed ECI to publish the names of the 65 lakh excluded voters on Bihar CEO's website as well as websites of the District Electoral Officers, along with the reasons for their exclusion. The information was to be displayed in EPIC-searchable format.
On August 22, the Court directed ECI to allow approximately 65 lakhs excluded voters to submit applications for inclusion through online mode along with their Aadhaar card.
On September 1, the Court dealt with applications seeking extension of the deadline to file claims/objections to the draft roll. In this regard, ECI told the Court that claims/objections could be filed even after the deadline and all such claims/objections filed before the last date of nominations will be considered. Considering, the Court did not extend the deadline. On a request for a direction that ECI accept Aadhaar card of 7.24 crore (approx.) voters as well, whose enumeration forms were submitted, it told the petitioners to flag specific instances where ECI has denied accepting Aadhaar of a voter in the 7.24 crore category.
On September 8, the Supreme Court directed ECI to treat Aadhaar card as a "12th document" which could be produced as proof of identity for the purpose of inclusion in the revised voters list of Bihar. The Court clarified that Aadhaar shall not be a proof of citizenship and that ECI officials would be entitled to verify the authenticity and genuineness of Aadhaar cards produced by voters.
Case Title: ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ORS. Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA, W.P.(C) No. 640/2025 (and connected cases)