‘Consider Aadhaar, Voter ID, Ration Card’: SC To ECI Over Bihar Voter Roll Revision, Next Hearing On July 28
The Supreme Court questioned the ECI's timing of Bihar's electoral roll revision, citing potential impact on voting rights. The court raised concerns about the procedure and timeline, while acknowledging ECI's authority.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday permitted the Election Commission of India (ECI) to press ahead with its Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, calling the exercise a constitutional obligation. A Bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi directed the poll panel to file a counter-affidavit by 21 July and fixed 28 July for the next hearing, when rejoinders from the petitioners are due.
Delivering its prima-facie view, the court observed: “We are of the prima facie view that Aadhaar cards, Voted ID cards and the Ration cards be allowed in the special intensive revision of electoral rolls,” noting that the petitioners had not sought an interim stay on the revision, news agency PTI reported.
Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the ECI, told the Bench that around 60 per cent of voters had already verified their credentials and assured that no name would be deleted without a hearing. The judges replied: “We cannot stop a constitutional body from doing what it is supposed to do. Simultaneously, we will not let them do what they are not supposed to do.”
Court quizzes poll panel on late start
While acknowledging the Commission’s mandate, the judges expressed unease over the timing of the SIR in a poll-bound state. Justice Dhulia remarked: “If you are to check citizenship under SIR of electoral rolls in Bihar, then you should have acted early; it is a bit late.” Earlier, the Bench had told the ECI: “We are not doubting your sincerity, but there are perceptions. We are not thinking of stopping you because it is a constitutional mandate.”
Aadhaar not proof of citizenship, says ECI
As reported by Bar and Bench, senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the Election Commission, argued that Aadhaar cannot be treated as proof of citizenship. Referring to Article 326 of the Constitution, he said, “Every voter has to be an Indian citizen, and an Aadhaar card is not proof of citizenship.”
Defending the ECI’s authority, Dwivedi stated that the last intensive revision had taken place in 2003 and that the exercise was necessary for cleaning up the rolls. “With passage of time, electoral rolls need to be revised to look into the inclusion or exclusion of voter names, with the SIR being the one exercise to do it,” he said. “If the ECI did not have the power to revise the electoral roll, then who did?”
Add popular documents or give reasons for excluding: SC
The bench took note of the ECI’s existing list of 11 documents for verification and said it was not exhaustive. “In our opinion, it would be in the interest of justice if Aadhaar cards, EPIC cards and ration cards should be included,” Justice Dhulia stated, while clarifying that the ECI would retain the discretion to accept or reject such documents. However, if the ECI chooses not to accept these documents, it must provide reasons, the bench directed, as per Bar and Bench.
The court also noted that the petitioners were not pressing for an interim stay on the ECI’s SIR notification at this stage.
Ten-party challenge led by ADR, Opposition MPs
More than ten petitions have questioned the legality and timing of the revision, including one filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR). Signatories also include RJD MP Manoj Jha, Trinamool Congress’s Mahua Moitra, Congress leader K.C. Venugopal, NCP (SP) MP Supriya Sule, CPI’s D. Raja, Samajwadi Party’s Harinder Singh Malik, Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Arvind Sawant, JMM’s Sarfraz Ahmed and Dipankar Bhattacharya of CPI (ML).
Counsel for ADR argued that revisions should be carried out strictly under the Representation of the People Act. The exercise is expected to cover approximately 7.9 crore voters.
The ECI has maintained that Aadhaar is not proof of citizenship and contends that periodic revisions are essential to keep rolls accurate. The Supreme Court, however, said it would continue to examine whether the Commission possesses the requisite authority and whether the present timing compromises the “root of democracy”–the right to vote.
Top Headlines
