by Nanditha Subhadra
It is rare, the petitioners and respondents alike celebrate a court verdict. In the case of the latest apex court’s verdict on Election Commission of India’s (ECI) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar both the petitioners and the respondents are celebrating.The respondent ECI and its supporters claim victory over the court’s ruling that the commission can proceed with its SIR exercise. Interestingly, the petitioners in their prayer had not demanded any stay or suspension of SIR.In its speaking order the Court has cautioned the Commission against arbitrary measures that could erode public trust, and this the petitioners project as victory.
Constitutional experts see the Supreme Court’s decision as a “critical reminder to the ECI to ensure transparency and fairness in voter verification processes, particularly with the upcoming Bihar Assembly elections. While allowing the SIR to proceed, the Court has emphasized that the ECI must avoid actions that fuel distrust or suspicion about its intentions, reinforcing the importance of safeguarding democratic principles.” The Court has in its order warned the ECI against arbitrary actions that could spark distrust or suspicion, reinforcing its role in upholding democratic integrity.
The petitioner’s contention was that the SIR guidelines overstep the ECI’s authority by encroaching on citizenship determination, which is outside its purview. To this, Bench, led by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia directed the ECI to ensure the SIR adheres to the Representation of People’s Act, 1950, and to address concerns raised in the petitions. The court also emphasized a balanced approach, noting that the revision should strengthen the electoral process without disenfranchising voters.
To the disappointment of the ECI counsel, the Court strongly suggested that the ECI consider including Aadhaar, voter ID (EPIC), and ration cards as valid documents for voter verification, in addition to the ECI’s existing list of 11 documents. The bench noted that the ECI’s list was “not exhaustive” and that including these widely used documents would be “in the interest of justice” to prevent voter exclusion. The court clarified that it was not mandating their inclusion but required the ECI to provide valid reasons if it chose to exclude them.
The verdict could also be seen as a nudge to ECI, for the Court Questioned ECI’s Role in Citizenship Verification. The court explicitly questioned the ECI’s authority to delve into citizenship verification, stating that this is the domain of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia remarked, “Why are you entering the citizenship domain through SIR? That is the domain of the Ministry of Home Affairs.” The ECI’s counsel, Rakesh Dwivedi, argued that citizenship is a prerequisite for voting under Article 326, but the Court countered that the SIR’s focus on citizenship risked overstepping the ECI’s mandate.
The court further expressed “serious doubts” about the timing of the SIR, noting its proximity to the Bihar elections (expected in November 2025). Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Joymalya Bagchii questioned why the exercise was linked to the election schedule and suggested it should have been conducted earlier or independently to avoid perceptions of electoral manipulation. The rushed 30-day timeline for revising 7.9 crore voters was also flagged as potentially hindering genuine voters’ participation. The court also directed the ECI to file a detailed response by July 21, 2025, addressing its authority, procedure, and timing. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on July 28, before the draft electoral roll is published on August 1. The ECI assured the court that it would follow principles of natural justice, ensuring no voter is excluded without a hearing.
In fact the unexplained urgency from ECI to push SIR has led to multiple speculations on the intent of the Commission. According to legal experts, “the ECI has not provided a clear, evidence-based rationale for discarding the January 2025 electoral roll, which internal ECI reports deemed robust. The sudden push for the SIR, with a tight deadline, has led critics and opposition leaders to question its necessity, especially in Bihar, a state approaching assembly elections.”.
It is a fact, the SIR’s timing and implementation have fuelled suspicions that the BJP-led NDA government is using the ECI to advance its political interests, particularly in opposition-ruled states like Bihar and West Bengal. There was a growing apprehension that the SIR’s stringent documentation requirements, such as proof of citizenship and, for voters born after 1987, parental identity documents, could exclude millions of eligible voters, particularly in states with high poverty, illiteracy, and migration rates. In Bihar, estimates suggest over three crore voters, especially from marginalized communities (SCs, STs, Muslims, and migrant workers), could be excluded due to lack of documents like passports or birth certificates.
Whatsoever, the SIR has undeniably united the opposition, providing a common cause for diverse parties to rally against the ECI and the ruling BJP. The controversy has placed the NDA government on the defensive. as it faces accusations of undermining democracy through an allegedly prejudiced ECI. While the BJP and ECI maintain that the SIR is a routine exercise to ensure electoral integrity, the court has questioned the lack of transparency and the timing of the process. The Supreme Court’s decision on July 10, 2025 has once again emphasised that the constitution is supreme and not the institutions. The Constitution exists to serve the people. India is a democracy. In a democracy, the people are supreme, as their collective will drives governance through voting, representation, and participation.
