Supreme Court’s Scrutiny of Bihar's Voter List Revision Triggers National Debate

New Delhi – The ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Bihar’s electoral rolls has sparked nationwide political and legal ripples, reaching the Supreme Court last week. A bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice J.B. Pardiwala heard arguments from some of the country’s top legal minds including senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Prashant Bhushan, and Abhishek Manu Singhvi.

The controversy began when petitioners challenged the legality and timing of the SIR exercise, which is aimed at updating the state's electoral rolls. On July 10, 2025, the Election Commission of India (ECI) issued a press note disclosing that 66.16% of enumeration forms had already been collected in Bihar within just 16 days since the SIR notification was released on June 24, 2025. Notably, voters still have until July 25, 2025, to submit their forms.

As of 6:00 PM on the date of the release, 52,224,956 forms had been submitted out of a total 78,969,844 registered voters in Bihar, implying a submission rate of approximately 66% – or six out of every ten voters.

Why the Controversy?

Under this revision, individuals whose names do not appear in the 2003 electoral rolls must re-establish their Indian citizenship to remain on the updated voter list. Petitioners have raised concerns over the exclusion of major identity documents such as the Aadhaar card and ration card from the list of accepted proofs, arguing this would disproportionately affect marginalized communities.

The Supreme Court acknowledged the importance of the exercise but questioned its timing. The bench observed that although the process itself is not unconstitutional, conducting it so close to elections raises concerns of potential voter manipulation. The court pointedly remarked:

"If the verification of citizenship under FIR of electoral rules in Bihar was necessary, it should have been done earlier. The timing is questionable."

Moreover, the bench noted that citizenship determination is under the purview of the Union Home Ministry, not the Election Commission. Despite this, the ECI was praised for ensuring transparency and for focusing special attention on vulnerable groups, including the elderly, disabled persons (PwDs), and the chronically ill.

The ECI reported that 7.90 crore forms had been printed, and 7.71 crore forms (approx. 98%) had already been distributed across Bihar. The Commission reiterated that the revision exercise was being executed with due diligence and integrity.

Supreme Court’s Order and Key Takeaways:

The Supreme Court did not halt the SIR process but clarified that:

• The list of acceptable documents is not exhaustive.
• Documents like Aadhaar card, ration card, and voter ID must be considered valid.
• The ECI must operate within the constitutional mandate and legislative framework.

The bench stressed that voter registration and enumeration are not mere administrative exercises, but crucial constitutional processes tied directly to citizens' fundamental democratic rights.

Political and Public Reactions: A Deeply Divided House

The verdict triggered mixed reactions from political parties, legal experts, and the public.

• Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan, one of the petitioners, welcomed the judgment. On X (formerly Twitter), he posted:

  “Kudos to the Supreme Court for paying serious attention to the issue of Bihar’s voter roll revision. The ECI was risking disenfranchisement of large sections by insisting on documents like birth certificates, which most people do not possess.”

• In contrast, West Bengal Leader of Opposition Suvendu Adhikari backed the ECI, stating:

  “People of Bengal welcome the ECI’s steps. Such a revision is needed here as well. This process will help counter illegal migration, particularly Rohingya Muslims who have infiltrated Bengal and beyond.”

He claimed that over 300,000 infiltrators have moved into other Indian states via Bengal due to unfenced borders, citing 40 km of unfenced areas. He also criticized political appeasement and warned against entering Muslim-majority regions, particularly in Jammu & Kashmir, stirring controversy with communal undertones.

• Former J&K Chief Minister Omar Abdullah adopted a more moderate stance. He emphasized that elections must proceed regardless of political disagreements:

  “In our region, elections have not been held for years. People should focus on voting and forming a government, not legal battles.”

• Samajwadi Party MP Mohibullah Nadvi supported the Supreme Court's observation:

  “A very balanced verdict. Only the Home Ministry can decide on citizenship, not the ECI. Every institution has its own limitations as laid out in the Constitution.”

• Meanwhile, BJP MP Ram Kripal Yadav dismissed the opposition's criticism as political theatre:

  “The Supreme Court has asked for a review. Let the ECI do its job. The opposition is just bitter because they lost. Let them protest—it won’t change facts.”

He also ridiculed Rahul Gandhi’s visit to the ECI headquarters, saying it was mere drama and questioned why the Congress delegation didn’t meet ECI officials despite waiting for two hours.

What Next? Will Other States Follow Bihar?

While the Supreme Court verdict applies only to Bihar, many speculate similar revisions may soon be implemented in other states. Political analysts say the debate has opened Pandora’s Box around citizenship, voting rights, and electoral transparency ahead of the 2026 general elections.

As the legal and political wrangling continues, the role of the ECI and the boundaries of its authority remain under judicial and public scrutiny.

Now, what’s your take? Do you believe the SIR process in Bihar is justified, or is it a covert attempt at voter suppression? Let us know in the comments. And stay tuned to Right to Justice for in-depth legal analysis.