The Supreme Court of India has allowed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to proceed with its Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the voter list in Bihar, while stressing the constitutional importance of the process. A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi has fixed the next hearing on July 28 and directed the Election Commission to file its counter affidavit by July 21.
According to a PTI report, the court said, "We are of the prima facie view that the special in-depth revision of the electoral roll should cover Aadhaar cards, voter ID cards and ration cards."
The court said the petitioners have not sought an interim stay on the revision process.
Read also: All Opposition Party Leaders Move Supreme Court Against Bihar Voter List Revision
During the proceedings, senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the Election Commission, told the court that nearly 60% of the voters have already got their ID cards verified. He also assured the bench that no voter's name would be deleted without giving an opportunity of being heard.
The bench remarked, "We cannot stop a constitutional body from doing what it should do. At the same time, we will not let them do what they should not do."
Court questions timing of voter list revision
Despite recognising the constitutional authority of the Election Commission, the bench expressed concern over the timing of the revision, especially because Bihar is an electoral state. Justice Dhulia remarked:
“If you have to check citizenship under SIR of voter list in Bihar, you should have taken action earlier; now it is a bit late.”
Read also: Supreme Court Stays Goa Sports Authority's Coach Selection After Woman Alleges Bias in Test
Earlier, the court had clarified:
“We do not doubt your sincerity, but there are some assumptions. We are not thinking of stopping you because it is a constitutional order.”
Aadhaar not proof of citizenship, says EC
Advocate Dwivedi, appearing for the commission, pointed out that Aadhaar alone cannot be considered proof of Indian citizenship. He cited Article 326 of the Constitution, which states that every voter must be a citizen of India.
“Aadhaar card is not proof of citizenship,” he told the court.
Dwivedi defended the revision process, saying the last time such a comprehensive update was done was in 2003 and the SIR was necessary to clear outdated or incorrect voter information.
Related Post: Supreme Court Declines Urgent Plea to Stop 'Udaipur Files' Release
SC asks EC to justify excluding popular documents
The bench reviewed the EC's current list of 11 documents to be used for verification and found them inadequate. The judges suggested that Aadhaar, EPIC (voter ID card) and ration card should also be considered.
"In our opinion, it would be in the interest of justice if Aadhaar card, EPIC card and ration card are also included," Justice Dhulia said.
However, the bench also clarified that the EC will have discretion to accept or reject these documents, but if rejected, reasons must be recorded and justified.
The court also noted that the petitioners are not currently pressing for a stay on the amendment process.
Petitions by several opposition leaders
Over ten petitions, including one by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and several opposition MPs, have challenged the SIR. The petitioners include Manoj Jha of RJD, Mahua Moitra of Trinamool Congress, K.C. Venugopal of Congress, Supriya Sule of NCP(SP), D. Raja of CPI, Harinder Singh Malik of SP, Arvind Sawant of Shiv Sena(UBT), Sarfaraz Ahmed of JMM and Dipankar Bhattacharya of CPI(ML).
The ADR counsel argued that such amendments should strictly follow the Representation of the People Act and said that the ongoing process may affect about 7.9 crore voters of Bihar.
Related Post: Aadhaar Not Proof of Citizenship, Election Commission Tells Supreme Court Amid Bihar Electoral Roll Dispute
Though the Election Commission is adamant that Aadhaar cannot verify citizenship, the Supreme Court has made it clear that it will closely examine the legal authority of the Election Commission and also see whether the timing of the amendment may undermine the democratic right to vote.
"We will examine whether this compromises the root of democracy - the right to vote," the bench concluded.