The Supreme Court is currently reviewing the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Bihar's voter lists, addressing concerns about potential voter disenfranchisement. The court has acknowledged the possibility of "mistakes" in the draft electoral roll and has emphasized the Election Commission of India's (ECI) willingness to correct them.
The opposition has vociferously argued that the SIR is a smokescreen to disenfranchise lakhs of people from marginalized communities who traditionally vote for the Congress or its allies. They claim that the ECI's demands for specific documents are unreasonable, as many Bihar residents do not possess them. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal argued that only a small percentage of people in Bihar have birth certificates, one of the documents required by the ECI. The opposition also alleges that approximately 6.5 million voters were illegally excluded from the draft electoral roll published on August 1st. Political activist Yogendra Yadav questioned the poll panel's data, suggesting the SIR exercise was designed to delete voters. Advocate Prashant Bhushan claimed the ECI isn't sharing details regarding the reasons for deleting names from the draft roll.
The ECI has denied any collusion and maintains that the SIR aims to "purify" the voter roll by removing ineligible voters, including those who have died, moved out of Bihar, or are registered multiple times. The ECI has stated that no name will be removed from the electoral roll without prior notice, a hearing opportunity, and a reasoned order. The commission argues the SIR is crucial to ensure only eligible citizens are included in the electoral rolls before the upcoming Bihar Assembly elections.
The Supreme Court has stated that the results of the SIR can be set aside as late as September if illegality is proven. It warned it might intervene if mass exclusion is proven. However, the court also acknowledged the ECI's authority to determine citizenship for electoral roll inclusion and exclusion. The court upheld the ECI's position that Aadhaar and voter ID cards are not conclusive proof of citizenship and must be supported by other documents. Justice Kant stated that Aadhaar is not a conclusive proof of citizenship and that it must be verified further using other documents.
During the hearing, Justice Bagchi remarked that the number of documents accepted by ECI is voter-friendly and not against it. Justice Kant observed that a significant percentage of Bihar residents possess Aadhaar and Elector's Photo Identity Cards, which can serve as proof, though not conclusive, of citizenship. The court clarified that individuals on the 2003 electoral roll when the previous intensive revision occurred do not need to produce documents for inclusion in the current draft roll.
The Supreme Court has acknowledged a "trust deficit" between the ECI and the opposition. The court is set to continue hearing pleas against the ECI's electoral roll revision exercise. The final voter list is scheduled to be released on September 30.
