The Supreme Court on Monday stated it presumes the Election Commission of India (ECI), as a constitutional authority, is following the law during the special intensive revision (SIR) of the electoral roll in poll-bound Bihar. However, the apex court cautioned that “in case of any illegality, the exercise would be set aside.”
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi scheduled October 7 for the final arguments on the validity of the Bihar SIR, declining to offer a “piecemeal opinion” on the exercise. According to news agency PTI, the bench clarified, “Our judgement in Bihar SIR will be applicable for Pan-India SIR,” and stated it cannot prevent the poll panel from conducting a similar exercise for the revision of the electoral roll across the country. The court, however, allowed petitioners against the Bihar SIR to also present arguments on the pan-India SIR on the same date.
In the interim, the top court issued a notice on a plea seeking the recall of its September 8 order, which directed the poll panel to include Aadhaar as the 12th prescribed document in the Bihar SIR. On that date, the apex court had clarified that Aadhaar would not serve as proof of citizenship and that the ECI could verify its authenticity if submitted by an elector for inclusion in the electoral roll.
Supreme Court Refuses to Alter Aadhaar Order, Keeps Citizenship Validity Issue Open
The Supreme Court declined to revisit its September 8 directive asking the Election Commission of India (ECI) to formally notify that Aadhaar cards can be used as proof of identity for inclusion in the revised electoral rolls under the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise.
A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymala Bagchi clarified that the order is interim and that the larger question regarding Aadhaar’s validity as proof remains undecided, Bar and Bench reported.
Court Stresses Aadhaar Cannot Be Singled Out
The Bench observed that Aadhaar should not be excluded merely on the grounds of forgery, noting that other documents also face the same vulnerability.
“Driving licenses can be forged .. ration cards can be forged. Several documents can be forged. Aadhaar is to be utilize to the extent law permits,” the judges remarked, as quoted by Bar and Bench’s report.
The observation came after Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader and advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay sought a modification of the order. He argued that Aadhaar cannot serve as evidence of citizenship and pointed out that the card is issued to foreigners as well.
“Please modify the order dated 8th September. Otherwise it will be disastrous,” Upadhyay urged.
The Court, however, responded that whether it would be “disaster or absence of disaster” is for the ECI to decide, while keeping the issue open for consideration.
Challenge to Bihar Electoral Roll Exercise
The matter relates to a batch of petitions challenging the SIR process in Bihar. Earlier, the Court was informed that around 65 lakh names had been removed from the draft roll published on August 1.
On August 14, the Court directed the ECI to upload the list of these voters marked for deletion. Later, on August 22, the Court allowed excluded individuals to use Aadhaar as identification for re-inclusion, a move that went beyond the eleven other documents the ECI had initially accepted.
On Monday, the Bench enquired about the status of the revision and decided to await further updates.
Senior Lawyers Seek Merits Hearing
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan pressed the Court for a date to hear the matter on merits, arguing that the SIR could undermine constitutional principles if allowed to proceed unchecked.
“The ECI is moving ahead with the other States. Since we had to a large degree addressed on the legal aspect, just give us a date today. If it is found that this is a perversion of a constitutional scheme we may press that this may not continue. There is no question of proceeding with other States and establishing fait accompli. An actual date may be given,” he submitted, as per Bar and Bench.
Similar appeals were made by Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi and other lawyers representing petitioners. Advocate Prashant Bhushan alleged that the ECI was violating its own disclosure rules, following which the Bench asked him to submit a compilation of the claims but refrained from issuing directions.
The Court has now scheduled the matter for October 7 and directed all parties to file short written notes of their arguments.
In earlier hearings, the Bench had also advised political parties to assist individuals excluded from the rolls. However, it declined to extend the September 1 deadline for filing claims, noting the ECI’s assurance that even late objections would be reviewed before finalisation. The Commission further submitted that the process would continue until the last date for filing nominations for the forthcoming State Assembly polls.
