Supreme Court Questions Voter List Purge in Bihar: 'Why Not Aadhaar as Proof of Citizenship?'

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday raised critical questions about the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Bihar's electoral rolls, especially the rejection of Aadhaar cards as proof of citizenship, just months ahead of the 2025 Bihar Assembly elections.

As the Election Commission of India (ECI) continues its SIR process across the state, the apex court bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Joymalya Bagchi expressed concerns over the timing, procedure, and legal basis of the revision exercise.

Election officials handing over enumeration forms to voters ahead of the Bihar

‘Why Not Aadhaar?’ SC Raises Key Question

Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing petitioners challenging the SIR, pointed out that Aadhaar is recognized under the Representation of the People Act, yet the ECI has chosen not to accept it as valid proof of citizenship.

The court asked the Election Commission’s counsel, Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, to explain the reasoning behind this decision. Dwivedi responded, “Aadhaar cannot be considered conclusive evidence of citizenship.”

Justice Dhulia observed that the matter of determining citizenship status falls under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Home Affairs, not the Election Commission. He stressed that Aadhaar being set aside raises practical and legal issues, especially given how widely it's used for identification.

Legal Concerns Over Timing and Execution

The bench also questioned why such a significant voter roll revision was initiated so close to the elections, which are expected in October-November 2025. Justice Bagchi remarked, "Why should this process be linked to the upcoming election at all?"

The court warned that if a voter’s name is removed during the SIR, the appeals process could result in denial of voting rights, due to lack of time before polling.

"If the EC takes away someone's right to vote just before the election, that person will have to go through an appeals process and may miss the chance to vote altogether," Justice Dhulia noted.

SC Poses Three Key Questions to Election Commission

The Supreme Court bench outlined three critical questions for the Election Commission:

1. Does the ECI have authority to conduct a special revision of this nature?

2. What are the acceptable documents or procedures in such revisions?

3. Is the timing appropriate, just months before an election?

The EC has argued that the last similar revision happened in 2003, and the current process is meant to ensure non-citizens are removed from electoral rolls.

Petitioners Claim Discrimination, Burden of Proof on Citizens

The revision drive has been challenged by multiple petitioners, including NGO ADR, Yogendra Yadav of Swaraj Party, and TMC MP Mahua Moitra. Senior lawyers Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi are representing several of them.

The petitions claim that the SIR is arbitrary and discriminatory, forcing even long-time voters to reverify their citizenship with documents many may not possess—especially in a state like Bihar with high levels of migration and poverty.

They further argue that the burden of proof unfairly shifts onto the individual, with July 25, 2025, set as the deadline to submit documents—raising fears of mass disenfranchisement.

Political Opposition Grows

Leaders from Congress, RJD, and other opposition parties have voiced strong objections. Rahul Gandhi and Tejashwi Yadav led a 'Bihar Bandh' protest, alleging the process is a political move to suppress votes in opposition strongholds.

Despite the criticism, the Supreme Court has not stayed the revision process, but the ongoing hearing continues to scrutinize the legitimacy and impact of the exercise.

Conclusion

With Bihar heading to the polls soon, the Supreme Court’s intervention in the voter list revision debate has stirred fresh political and legal tensions. While the Election Commission defends the process as constitutionally valid, petitioners argue it risks denying voting rights to millions of legitimate citizens. All eyes now remain on the court’s final verdict in the coming weeks.