Constitutional Rights vs Electoral Rules: The Supreme Court’s Tough Questions

New Delhi, July 11, 2025 — In a landmark hearing held on July 10, 2025, the Supreme Court of India found itself at the crossroads of constitutional rights and electoral regulations, raising profound questions about the democratic fabric of the nation. The case in focus revolves around the Election Commission of India (ECI)'s directive for a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, potentially impacting the voting rights of nearly 4 crore citizens.

The courtroom was charged with urgency and gravity as a bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi grilled the ECI over its June 24th order. This order mandates all voters added to the electoral roll after 2003 to submit proof of Indian citizenship through a prescribed list of 11 identity documents. Crucially, commonly held documents such as Aadhaar, Voter ID cards, and Ration cards were omitted from this list, sparking widespread concern.

The petitions, filed by a coalition of opposition leaders and civil society organizations including Mahua Moitra, Manoj Jha, Yogendra Yadav, ADR, PUCL, and others, argue that the ECI’s move is arbitrary, exclusionary, and unconstitutional. They claim the process threatens to disenfranchise millions, particularly among Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, migrants, and economically disadvantaged communities.

Legal Foundation and the ECI's Justification

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing the petitioners, argued that the Representation of the People Act, 1950 only provides for two kinds of electoral revisions: intensive and summary. The ECI's new term, "Special Intensive Revision," has no basis in the statute or corresponding rules, raising concerns about its legality.

He further emphasized that the exclusion of documents like Aadhaar and Voter ID, while requiring difficult-to-obtain proofs such as passports and school certificates, disproportionately burdens the poor and illiterate populations in states like Bihar. He labeled this a "flawed exercise of power," one that contravenes the principles of equality and non-discrimination enshrined in the Constitution.

The ECI, through Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, defended the measure, stating that Aadhaar cannot serve as proof of citizenship. He invoked Article 326, arguing that the ECI possesses wide-ranging powers to conduct revisions and ensure the integrity of electoral rolls.

However, this rationale did not sit comfortably with the Court.

Judicial Scrutiny and Bench’s Observations

Justice Dhulia was quick to point out that determining citizenship does not fall under the jurisdiction of the ECI, but rather the Ministry of Home Affairs. This clarification marked a pivotal moment in the hearing. Justice Bagchi added another layer by questioning the timing and urgency of the exercise, observing that such a significant process, launched just months before elections, risked excluding legitimate voters from the upcoming polls.

He further warned that removing individuals already on the 2025 electoral roll would force them into a lengthy appeals process, effectively denying them their right to vote.

The Court also scrutinized the logic of excluding Aadhaar, especially when some of the 11 accepted documents were Aadhaar-based. Justice Dhulia questioned the selective application of document acceptance, noting the inconsistency in allowing Aadhaar for some purposes but not for others.

Wider Political and Legal Implications

The hearing brought forth not just legal but deeply political and human rights concerns. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal underscored that only the Government of India, under the Citizenship Act, has the authority to determine an individual's citizenship, not election officials. He presented data from a Bihar government survey showing that only 2.5% of residents possess passports, and 14.7% have matriculation certificates—documents required by the ECI.

Sibal argued that this policy could systematically disenfranchise the most vulnerable, violating the core principles of universal suffrage and equal access to democratic participation.

Joining the chorus of concern, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi warned that disenfranchising even a single eligible voter compromises the democratic process. He termed the move as one that "hits at the basic structure of the Constitution."

Advocate Vrinda Grover further argued that the SIR process was inherently exclusionary and imposed disproportionate burdens on already marginalized groups.

Fundamental Rights Under the Scanner

The petitions invoked multiple constitutional provisions: Article 14 (equality before the law), Article 19 (freedom of expression and movement), Article 325 (non-discrimination in electoral rolls), and Article 326 (universal adult suffrage).

ADR's plea highlighted that the burden of proof is being shifted from the State to the citizen, without providing adequate safeguards. PUCL accused the ECI of failing to establish a legitimate purpose or deploy protective mechanisms to prevent harm. Yogendra Yadav argued that the electoral roll as of January 2025 should be treated as final and questioned the exclusion of widely held documents like Aadhaar and Ration cards.

Court’s Interim Directions

In a significant interim observation, the Supreme Court remarked that since the ECI’s list of acceptable documents is not exhaustive, it would be in the interest of justice to consider Aadhaar, Voter ID, and Ration Cards as valid proofs as well. The Court clarified, however, that this does not mean inclusion in the voter roll would be automatic on the basis of these documents alone.

The ECI was instructed to file a counter affidavit by July 21, with the next hearing scheduled for July 28—just ahead of the publication of the draft electoral roll on August 1.

The Court also responded positively to the petitioners' request that no draft electoral roll be published until the matter is adjudicated, acknowledging the sensitivity and urgency of the issue.

The Larger Democratic Context

This legal battle is not confined to Bihar alone. With over 3 crore people potentially facing disenfranchisement, the case has emerged as a test for India’s democratic resilience. The exclusion of Aadhaar—especially when it was accepted in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections—raises pressing questions about the consistency and fairness of electoral processes.

Mahua Moitra contended that asking voters to prove their parents’ citizenship is both impractical and beyond the scope of the ECI’s powers. Her arguments, coupled with those of other petitioners, point to an overarching concern: that such exercises can become tools of exclusion rather than inclusion.

Conclusion: A Test for India’s Democratic Soul

As the Supreme Court prepares for its next hearing, one thing is clear: the issue at hand transcends administrative efficiency. It touches upon the soul of Indian democracy. The right to vote is not a privilege bestowed by the State but a fundamental right that forms the bedrock of the nation’s democratic framework.

The outcome of this case will likely shape the contours of electoral inclusion for years to come. The Court’s interim directions have provided temporary relief and clarity, but the larger constitutional questions remain to be answered.

Whether the ECI will revise its guidelines or stand its ground, and how the Court will eventually rule, remains to be seen. What is undeniable, however, is that this case has stirred a national debate on who gets to decide who counts as a citizen, and by extension, who gets to vote.

Stay tuned for the next chapter in this unfolding legal saga that could redefine the contours of India’s electoral landscape.