Bihar Voter List Row: Supreme Court Flags Identity vs Citizenship in SIR Exercise

By Suryavanshi IAS | UPSC-Ready Current Affairs | GS Paper II Focus

---

Context

On July 10, 2025, the Supreme Court of India intervened in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Bihar’s electoral rolls. It questioned the Election Commission of India's (ECI) exclusion of Aadhaar, EPIC (Voter ID), and ration card from the list of documents considered for voter verification.

The case reflects broader constitutional issues — balancing electoral integrity with citizen rights, identity vs citizenship, and the jurisdiction of ECI under the Representation of People Act, 1950 and Article 324 of the Constitution.

---

Background: What is SIR (Special Intensive Revision)?

• A targeted electoral roll update to ensure accuracy.

• Meant to clean up rolls by deleting ineligible names (deaths, shifts, duplicates).

• Typically conducted before elections.

• In Bihar, the last intensive revision was in 2003, prompting the ECI to launch SIR in 2025 before Assembly elections.

---

Supreme Court’s Stand

The SC did not halt the SIR but made crucial observations:

• The list of 11 documents for voter verification is not exhaustive.

• Aadhaar, EPIC (Voter ID), and ration card must be considered valid.

• The timing and nature of the SIR are ambiguous — neither summary nor special under Section 21 of the RPA, 1950.

• The Court will review:

  • ECI’s power to conduct SIR

  • Manner and timing of execution

  • Possible disenfranchisement of genuine voters

---

Petitioners’ Concerns

Senior advocates (Kapil Sibal, Singhvi, Vrinda Grover) raised serious issues:

1. Fear of NRC-type exclusion in disguise.

2. ECI does not have the jurisdiction to determine citizenship — that lies with Ministry of Home Affairs.

3. Aadhaar holders (87% in Bihar) risk disenfranchisement due to missing “preferred” documents (passport, school certificate).

4. Article 326 guarantees voting rights to citizens aged 18+ — not conditional on arbitrary document lists.

They cited:

• Lal Babu Hussein v. ERO: Citizens once enrolled in rolls cannot be re-asked to prove citizenship.

• SIR has placed voters in a ‘Trishanku’ state — suspended between valid and invalid without legal recourse.

---

ECI’s Argument

• Aadhaar ≠ Citizenship: It is only an identity proof, also issued to non-citizens.

• ECI aims to prevent bogus voting by verifying genuine voters.

• Digital integration via ECI Net to streamline data entry and uploading.

• Already completed 5.5 crore enumerations (~60%).

---

Legal and Constitutional Framework

Provision	Explanation
Article 324	Vests superintendence of elections in ECI
Section 21, RPA 1950	Details electoral roll revision types
Article 326	Universal adult suffrage
RER Rules, 1960	Govern electoral roll preparation
Aadhaar Act, 2016	Aadhaar is not proof of citizenship, only identity

❗ Critical Issues for UPSC Mains

1. Identity vs Citizenship

• Can an identity document like Aadhaar be used for voter roll inclusion?

• Should identity verification be equated with citizenship verification?

2. Constitutional Morality vs Administrative Convenience

• Does administrative efficiency (SIR before elections) justify risk of mass disenfranchisement?

3. Right to Vote as a Fundamental Democratic Right

• Although not a fundamental right, voting is an essential democratic right under statutory law (RPA, 1950).

4. Judicial Oversight on ECI

• Should courts interfere in ECI’s “discretionary domain”?

• How does judicial review preserve the democratic structure?

---

UPSC Previous Year Question (GS Paper II – 2017)

Q. “To enhance the quality of democracy in India, the Election Commission of India has proposed electoral reforms in 2016.” What are the suggested reforms and how far are they significant to make democracy successful?

Link to Topic:
This ongoing case is part of a larger narrative of electoral reforms, where the integrity of rolls, citizen rights, and ECI’s accountability form the crux of democratic legitimacy.

---

Way Forward for UPSC Aspirants

1. Balance Required: Between ensuring genuine voters and preventing wrongful deletions.

2. Document Clarity: A well-defined list accepted nationally for voter verification.

3. Due Process: Voters must have the right to be heard before deletion from rolls.

4. Legal Reforms: Clear boundaries for ECI’s role in verification vs MHA's role in citizenship.

5. SC Guidance: A final judgment can set a constitutional benchmark for electoral revision practices.

---

✍️ Conclusion

The Bihar SIR case underscores the need for transparency, inclusivity, and legal accountability in the electoral process. While ECI's intentions of cleaning rolls are necessary, its methods must uphold the spirit of the Constitution. Voter identity cannot become a proxy for citizenship screening without legislative backing. The Supreme Court's vigilance ensures that democracy is not reduced to a bureaucratic checklist but remains a right-based participatory process.