Will 4 Crore Voters in Bihar Lose Their Voting Rights?

New Delhi, July 11, 2025 – A single explosive hearing in the Supreme Court on Wednesday has brought to light a serious constitutional debate: could nearly 4 crore voters in Bihar lose their voting rights? The issue revolves around the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) controversial directive requiring voters added to the electoral roll after 2003 to prove their citizenship, using only a restricted list of 11 accepted documents. Notably absent from this list were commonly used identity documents such as the Aadhaar card, Voter ID, and Ration card.

This sparked an immediate legal challenge. A group of petitioners—Mahua Moitra, Manoj Jha, Yogendra Yadav, and the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR)—approached the Supreme Court, alleging that the ECI's move is arbitrary, unconstitutional, and poses a threat of mass disenfranchisement, particularly of SCs, STs, migrants, and the poor.

The Legal Face-Off

The case was heard by a bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. Arguing for the petitioners, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan asserted that the Representation of the People Act, 1950 permits only two kinds of electoral roll revisions—intensive and summary. However, the ECI introduced a third, undefined term: Special Intensive Revision (SIR), which has no legal backing in the Act or its associated rules.

He pointed out the shocking exclusion of Aadhaar and Voter ID from the accepted documents and noted that voters registered before 2003 were exempt, while newer voters were being asked to furnish passports, residency certificates, or school certificates—documents not commonly available, especially in economically and educationally backward states like Bihar.

Justice Dhulia observed that the ECI was acting within constitutional provisions, but Advocate Gopal countered that while the power may exist, the method of execution is flawed, arguing that an “artificial distinction” was being drawn which the law does not permit.

Aadhaar at the Centre of the Storm

Justice Dhulia questioned the ECI’s exclusion of Aadhaar as a valid document. Justice Bagchi added that some of the 11 accepted documents are themselves based on Aadhaar, making its omission contradictory. The ECI's lawyer, Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, responded that Aadhaar cannot be accepted as proof of citizenship. To this, Justice Dhulia clarified that determining citizenship is the prerogative of the Ministry of Home Affairs, not the Election Commission.

When Dwivedi invoked Article 326 to justify ECI’s authority, the Court questioned why such a crucial exercise had been initiated so close to the election. Justice Bagchi remarked that removing voters already on the 2025 roll could force them to appeal and potentially deny them the right to vote in the upcoming election.

Timing, Intentions, and Inclusivity

The Court also expressed concern over the timing of the revision exercise, especially with elections just months away and the required documents not readily available to most. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal intervened, stating that only the Government of India can adjudicate citizenship under the Citizenship Act, not individual officers of the ECI.

Citing a Bihar government survey, Sibal revealed that only 2.5% of residents have passports, 14.7% hold matriculation certificates, and access to other listed documents is even lower. Birth certificates, Aadhaar, and MNREGA cards—crucial for many—have been excluded.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi strongly argued that disenfranchising even one eligible voter undermines democracy and violates the basic structure of the Constitution. Justice Dhulia agreed, stating that the matter touches the very roots of Indian democracy.

Advocate Vrinda Grover added that the entire process is exclusionary, imposing a disproportionate burden on the poor and marginalized.

ECI’s Pushback and the Court’s Response

Dwivedi attempted to question the locus standi of the petitioners, arguing that they were activists, not directly affected voters. This was quickly dismissed by the Court, with Justice Dhulia asking pointedly, “Are you serious with this objection?”, and Justice Bagchi remarking, “This can’t be your best point. Let’s move on.”

The Court also questioned the ECI’s claim that the revision exercise is unrelated to the elections, asking why it was timed just before the November polls. Justice Dhulia expressed doubt over the feasibility of the timeline: “Even I won’t be able to immediately produce such documents if asked.”

Key Directions from the Supreme Court

In a significant observation, the Supreme Court said that since the ECI's list of documents is not exhaustive, it would be in the interest of justice for the ECI to also consider Aadhaar cards, Voter ID cards issued by the ECI, and ration cards as acceptable identity documents.

However, the Court clarified that this does not imply automatic inclusion of any name based solely on these documents. The ECI will retain its discretion. The Court directed the Commission to file its counter affidavit by July 21, with the next hearing scheduled for July 28, before the draft electoral rolls are to be published on August 1.

The petitioners requested that no draft list be published while the matter remains sub judice, and the Court expressed agreement with this view.

Wider Implications

The background of the case is equally significant. Manoj Jha argued that this process is particularly damaging to the poor, migrants, Dalits, and Muslims. He termed the exclusion of Aadhaar irrational, especially when it was accepted in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections.

Mahua Moitra pointed out that the ECI is demanding proof of parents' citizenship, which is not permissible under Article 326 or the RP Act. The ADR highlighted violations of Articles 14, 19, 325, and 326, stating that the burden is being unjustly shifted from the State to the citizens, placing over 3 crore voters at risk of disenfranchisement.

PUCL argued that the ECI had not established a legitimate objective, nor did it provide safeguards to prevent disproportionate harm.

Yogendra Yadav recommended treating the January 2025 electoral roll as final and called the exclusion of Aadhaar, Ration Cards, MNREGA, and Job Cards unfair and undemocratic.

Verdict So Far

In just one hearing, the Supreme Court expanded the scope of the ECI’s document list to include Aadhaar, Voter ID, and Ration Cards, and clarified that citizenship determination is not solely ECI’s jurisdiction, but also concerns the Ministry of Home Affairs.

While the final verdict is pending, one thing is clear: this is no longer just a Bihar issue—it is a litmus test for India’s democratic framework.