SIR in Bihar transparent, not discriminatory, EC tells Supreme Court in affidavit

In its affidavit, the ECI stated that more than 90 percent of electors in Bihar had already submitted enumeration forms.

The Election Commission of India (ECI), on Monday, filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court defending its Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar. It asserted that the exercise is essential to restore public confidence in the electoral process and ensure the inclusion of all eligible voters.

The affidavit, submitted in response to the top court's July 10 directive, comes amid mounting criticism from political leaders who have warned that the revision might lead to large-scale voter exclusion, particularly among marginalised communities.

The apex court is slated to hear the matter next on July 28.

A vacation Bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi is hearing the batch of petitions challenging the ECI’s June 24 order initiating the SIR exercise in poll-bound Bihar.

While the court had refused to stay the process, it directed the Commission to respond to the concerns raised.

“In our prima facie view, since the list is not exhaustive, it would be in the interest of justice for the ECI to also consider the Aadhaar card, Electoral Photo Identity Card issued by the Election Commission, and the ration card,” the Bench had observed in its earlier order.

Petitioners include the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, RJD MP Manoj Jha, Congress leader K.C. Venugopal, and former Bihar MLA Mujahid Alam, among others.

In its affidavit, the ECI stated that more than 90 percent of electors in Bihar had already submitted enumeration forms. “Apart from ensuring that no eligible elector is left out of the rolls, special attention is being given to marginalised and vulnerable communities,” the poll body said.

Also defending its decision to exclude Aadhaar as a valid document, the ECI maintained that Aadhaar is not proof of citizenship as required under Article 326 of the Constitution. The poll body, however, clarified that the list of acceptable documents used for the revision was “indicative” and not exhaustive.

“This is the first time that all political parties have been involved at such a scale in an intensive revision exercise,” the affidavit stated, noting that over 1.5 lakh Booth Level Agents (BLAs) appointed by parties were working with Booth Level Officers (BLOs) to reach every household.

The Commission further alleged that the data and figures cited by the petitioners were outdated and misleading.

Additionally, the ECI pointed out that several petitioners are elected representatives of recognised political parties in Bihar, many of whom have actively participated in the SIR process.

The Commission insisted that the revision was transparent and had support across the political spectrum. “All parties have appreciated the necessity of the exercise and are cooperating to ensure timely completion,” the ECI told the court.

The ADR, in its plea, has sought to quash the June 24 order, arguing that it violates several constitutional provisions, including Articles 14, 19, 21, 325, and 326, as well as the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.

The NGO contended that the revision risks disenfranchising lakhs of voters without due process. It also slammed the documentary requirements, arguing they place the burden of proving eligibility on citizens rather than the state.

“The SIR is unreasonable and impractical,” the ADR said, adding that many voters, particularly SCs, STs, and migrant workers in Bihar, lack access to birth certificates or parental documents. “Over three crore voters may be excluded due to tight deadlines and documentation barriers,” the petition warned.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing RJD MP Manoj Jha, argued that the ECI had no authority to determine citizenship through such a revision exercise. Echoing the concern, Mahua Moitra accused the Commission of attempting to disenfranchise poor and migrant voters at the behest of the BJP.

Jha, in a separate plea, had alleged that the exercise lacked consultation with stakeholders and targeted specific communities, including Muslims and Dalits, describing the order as ''arbitrary and discriminatory".

The Supreme Court had earlier questioned the timing of the SIR, observing that while such an exercise was not objectionable in itself, it should ideally have been carried out earlier, considering the Bihar Assembly elections are scheduled for November 2025.