English
English
English
An important hearing was held in the Supreme Court on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) going on in Bihar. During this, the Election Commission’s lawyer said that he has not received copies of all the petitions, which is making it difficult to present a complete side. At the same time, the petitioner’s lawyer questioned the commission’s process and said that important documents like Aadhaar card and voter ID are not being recognized for adding names to the voter list, while these are considered to be the most reliable documents of identity.
Supreme Court (Source: Internet)
New Delhi: Hearing on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) going on in Bihar began in the Supreme Court on 10 July 2025. The Election Commission's lawyer told the court that he has not yet received copies of all the petitions. Due to which it is becoming difficult to put forth a clear stand from his side.
According to the information received by the Dynamite News correspondent, the petitioner's lawyer, senior advocate Gopal Shankarnarayanan, said that the provision of voter list revision is present in the law, and this process can be done in a brief form or by preparing the entire list afresh. Questioning the Election Commission, he said that the Election Commission has coined a new term, 'Special Intensive Revision.'
The commission says that this was done in 2003, but then the number of voters was much less. Now there are more than 7 crore voters in Bihar, and the entire process is being carried out rapidly. The lawyer said that the Election Commission has this right, but the process should be run in a legal, transparent, and practical manner, especially when crores of voters are included in the list.
Question on the process of the Election Commission
The petitioner's lawyer raised questions about the process of the Election Commission and said that the commission is accepting 11 documents for adding names to the voter list, but important identity cards like the Aadhaar card and voter ID are being excluded from this process. He said that Aadhaar cards and voter IDs are the most reliable identity documents, so it is not logical to keep them out. This makes the whole process look arbitrary and discriminatory.
Debate on the need for door-to-door investigation
The lawyer also said that if the process that the Election Commission is running is intensive revision, then the officials should go to every house and collect voter information. He said that if this is not just on paper but a real intensive revision, then door-to-door investigation is necessary, but this is not happening.
Statement of Justice Dhuliya
During the hearing, Justice Dhuliya said that if SIR was done in 2003 and the commission already has the data, then perhaps it is not necessary to collect information by going door-to-door. This argument can be given by the Commission. The petitioner's lawyer objected to this and said that if a person has been a voter for the last 10 years, then why does he need to prove his citizenship or identity again?
Justice Joymalya Bagchi gave clarity on the rights of the commission
Justice Joymalya Bagchi clarified during the hearing that the provision for special revision is in Section 21(3) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1950. He said special revision is allowed under Section 21(3), and it is clearly written in the law that the Election Commission has the right to decide how to carry out this process.
Serious objections of the petitioner's lawyer
During the hearing in the Supreme Court, the petitioner's lawyer raised serious objections. He said, "The Aadhaar card was earlier considered as an identity document in the voter list, but now it has been removed. This is a completely arbitrary decision." Along with this, he also expressed the need for improvement in the election process and said that there are about 7.5 crore voters in Bihar at present, and now, through this process, an attempt is being made to remove the names of people on a large scale, which can affect the fundamental rights of democracy.
The court asked the lawyer to put the issue in a brief manner
During the hearing, the atmosphere became heated at one time when the petitioner's lawyer raised questions on the process of the Election Commission. On this, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice Dhuliya asked the lawyer to put the matter in brief. Justice Dhuliya remarked that we are walking on the highway; you do not enter the streets. Talk about the issue.
Statement of Election Commission lawyer Rakesh Dwivedi
Election Commission lawyer Rakesh Dwivedi said in the court that only Indian citizens have the right to vote. The Aadhar card is not proof of citizenship, so it was not accepted. On this, Justice Dhuliya sarcastically said that you should have started this process earlier.
Argument of senior advocate Kapil Sibal
Kapil Sibal argued in the court that the commission is putting the burden of proving citizenship on the voters. He said, "The commission should tell on what basis it does not consider anyone an Indian citizen. Even voter ID cards, birth certificates, and MNREGA cards are not being accepted."
Argument of Abhishek Manu Singhvi
Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that when such a comprehensive revision was done in 2003, there was a lot of time left for the elections, but this time the elections are near, due to which there is a possibility of removing lakhs of people from the list.
Only Indian citizens have the right to vote
Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing on behalf of the Election Commission, told the court that only Indian citizens have the right to vote, and it is necessary that the identity of the voter is checked. He said that the Aadhar card is not proof of citizenship. The commission is accepting 11 types of documents.
Court's final question
During the hearing, the court also raised the question as to why the Election Commission did not start this process before time. Justice Dhuliya said that once the list is prepared, the court will not interfere in it; therefore, caution is necessary.
