“Publication Of Voter List Won’t Prejudice Court’s Intervention If Illegality Found”: Supreme Court Defers Hearing On Bihar Electoral Roll Challenge To October 7

“What difference will it make to us? If we are satisfied there is some illegality, we can…” –Supreme Court of India deferred the hearing in the high-stakes challenge to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls being carried out in Bihar by the Election Commission of India (ECI). The matter will now be taken up on October 7, despite fervent requests by the petitioners for an earlier date, before the final voters list is officially published on October 1.

A Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi made it clear that the impending Dussehra recess, beginning on September 28, precludes an earlier listing. Rejecting concerns that publication of the final rolls may render the issue infructuous, the Court emphatically remarked, “What difference will it (the final list) make to us? If we are satisfied there is some illegality, we can...” — underlining that judicial scrutiny is not fettered by administrative finality.

The matter involves a clutch of petitions, including those by Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), challenging alleged procedural irregularities in the ECI’s SIR exercise and the legality of relying on Aadhaar for identity verification in voter registration.

“Transparency Must Prevail in Democracy”: Supreme Court Urges ECI to Disclose Objection Details

Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for ADR, argued that the ECI is not adhering to its own manuals, and is refusing to upload objections received during the SIR process, despite clear legal obligations. He alleged that the Commission was operating the revision process without transparency.

In response, Justice Surya Kant observed, “To the extent you can bring in public domain what you have done... it will bring transparency.” Justice Bagchi concurred, suggesting that even “putting out the number of objections received” could aid public confidence.

Despite these oral observations, the Bench declined to formally incorporate them into the order, a move that disappointed Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who urged that daily bulletins on objections and claims be mandated. ECI’s counsel, Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, defended the Commission’s approach, citing logistical difficulties in issuing daily updates, and stated that weekly disclosures were already being made.

“Aadhaar Can Be Forged, But That Doesn’t Invalidate Its Legal Use”: Court Issues Notice On Challenge Against Aadhaar As Identity Proof

The Court also heard an intervention application by Advocate Ashwini Upadhyaya, seeking modification of the earlier order that allowed Aadhaar to be used as a 12th identity document during the revision process. He contended that Aadhaar is not proof of citizenship and warned of potential misuse by “lakhs of Rohingyas and Bangladeshis” residing in Bihar. Upadhyaya submitted that obtaining Aadhaar merely requires a 182-day stay in India and that allowing its use would be "disastrous".

Justice Surya Kant responded with caution and realism: “Driver’s license, Aadhaar—many documents can be forged... Aadhaar is to be utilized to the extent law permits.” Nonetheless, the Court issued notice on the application, signaling that the issue merits further scrutiny.

"Very Little Time Left Before Poll Notification, But Court Declines Early Hearing": Petitioners Express Urgency Amid Upcoming Bihar Assembly Elections

Appearing for RJD, Senior Advocate Dr. A.M. Singhvi and Advocate Vrinda Grover pressed for an expedited hearing, citing the impending deadline for constituting the new Bihar Legislative Assembly by November 22. Grover pointed out that the election notification is likely by mid-October, leaving a narrow window for effective judicial intervention.

Despite these submissions, the Bench remained firm, stating that October 7 is the earliest available non-miscellaneous day post-reopening. The Court appeared reluctant to disrupt the calendar, but reiterated its commitment to substantively adjudicate the matter regardless of the publication of the final electoral roll.

Developments So Far: Court Cautions ECI Against Mass Exclusion, But Stops Short of Halting Roll Publication

The legal battle began with a July 10 order where the Court directed ECI to consider Aadhaar, ration card, and EPIC as valid documents for voter inclusion. On July 28, the Court declined to halt the publication of draft electoral rolls scheduled for August 1, but orally urged ECI to consider Aadhaar cards.

When informed on July 29 that 65 lakh voters could be excluded, the Court remarked that it would intervene in the event of mass exclusion. ADR filed an application on August 6, alleging that ECI failed to disclose the identities of the excluded individuals. The Court responded on August 14 by directing the ECI to publish the names of excluded voters and reasons for exclusion on official websites, in EPIC-searchable format.

On August 22, the Court directed the ECI to allow these 65 lakh voters to submit inclusion applications online, using Aadhaar as supporting identity.

On September 1, the Court refused to extend the deadline for claims/objections but clarified that objections can be filed till the last date of nomination. Most recently, on September 8, the Court clarified that Aadhaar can be used as the 12th identity document but stressed that it is not proof of citizenship, and that ECI officials are entitled to verify its authenticity.

“We Will Step In If Mass Exclusion Happens”: Supreme Court Maintains Oversight But Defers Active Intervention

Despite declining early hearing, the Court's consistent stance has been to monitor the process closely, and step in if the constitutional mandate of universal franchise is endangered. Its oral observations indicate a recognition that electoral disenfranchisement, especially at such scale, would be intolerable.

As the Court prepares to hear the case on October 7, the central issues remain unresolved — including the legality of Aadhaar as proof, the alleged exclusion of lakhs of voters, and whether the ECI’s Special Revision is compliant with statutory and constitutional safeguards.

Case Title: Association for Democratic Reforms and Ors. v. Election Commission of India

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 640 of 2025 and connected matters