Indian Elections on Trial: Supreme Court, Bihar Voter Rolls and the Fight for the Franchise

On July 10, 2025, the Supreme Court of India declined to stay the controversial Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, a process that has been described by critics as a veiled citizenship test. Although the top court refrained from halting the revision, it expressed deep concern about the timing and manner of its implementation, which strike at the very core of democracy, specifically, the right to vote. In the course of the hearing on petitions challenging the special revisions, the court directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to consider Aadhaar cards, voter ID (EPIC), and ration cards as valid documents for updating the rolls. Yet, it ultimately left the decision to the commission’s discretion to accept or reject these additional documents.

At first glance, revising the electoral roll appears to be a routine administrative task. However, in Bihar, the process has been marred by a troubling lack of transparency and the potential for disenfranchisement. By urging the ECI to consider three additional documents as valid identity proofs, the top court implicitly acknowledged widespread concerns about the ongoing special revision. Critics argue that the current list of 11 accepted documents is overly restrictive, and places an undue burden on voters, potentially deterring or excluding eligible individuals from registering. 

Yet, it remains unclear whether the Supreme Court’s observations are binding. The Election Commission’s discretion to accept or reject the suggested additions on procedural or administrative grounds has yet to be determined.

On inclusion of Aadhaar 

Earlier in the hearing, the ECI argued that Aadhaar should be excluded from the documentation process because it does not prove citizenship. The Supreme Court rightly clarified that the special revision process is intended to verify identity, not citizenship. 

The bench also noted that none of the currently accepted documents serve as definitive proof of citizenship; they are used solely to confirm identity. More pointedly, the court exposed a flaw in the ECI’s reasoning: if Aadhaar routinely serves as the basis for obtaining other accepted documents, such as caste or domicile certificates, then excluding Aadhaar while accepting its derivatives is logically inconsistent. This contradiction not only undermines the ECI’s position but also casts doubt on the rationale behind its document criteria.

Furthermore, the ECI’s stance appears starkly out of touch with the lived realities in states like Bihar. With nearly 87% of the population possessing an Aadhaar card, it is by far the most accessible and widely used form of identification. In sharp contrast, only 45-50% of the population are matriculates, and fewer than 2% hold passports, making alternative IDs largely unattainable for vast sections of society. Excluding Aadhaar from the voter identification process therefore disproportionately impacts individuals who depend on it as their primary ID, risking the disenfranchisement of a substantial portion of the electorate.

These discrepancies point to the core issue at the centre of the controversy: the apparent misuse of the special intensive revision process to question voters’ citizenship, despite its official purpose being limited to identity verification. The court underscored that the authority to determine citizenship lies exclusively with the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), not the Election Commission. 

Burden of citizenship

The Supreme Court has consistently held that individuals already registered to vote cannot be burdened with proving their citizenship. This well-established precedent directly conflicts with the current approach, which effectively presumes all voters to be potential non-citizens unless they prove otherwise – a position that risks widespread disenfranchisement, even among those with valid identification. 

The ECI has introduced an arbitrary distinction between voters enrolled before 2003 and those enrolled afterward, without any clear legal or constitutional basis. It cannot sanctify some names on the rolls while requiring others to re-establish their eligibility during a revision. Yet, the court’s interim findings stopped short of barring the mass removal of individuals listed in the Special Summary Roll finalised as recently as January 2025.

Why the chronology is a matter of concerns

Bihar underwent an intensive electoral roll revision in 2003, followed by regular summary revisions, the latest of which concluded in January 2025. These summary revisions, mandated by the Constitution, are intended to keep voter lists accurate and current. Officials confirmed the reliability of the rolls, which continued to be updated through June 2025 in accordance with established procedures. 

Yet, in an abrupt and unexplained move, the ECI ordered a full-scale re-verification, effectively discarding months of administrative effort. This sudden intervention without any public disclosure of systemic flaws raises troubling questions. It not only undermines the integrity of the revision process but also casts doubt over the impartiality of the electoral machinery. 

Confusion on the ground has stemmed from inconsistent interpretations of the commission’s rules on document submission and verification. In Bihar, a more liberal approach taken by the Chief Electoral Officer was later overruled by the Chief Election Commissioner, highlighting the lack of uniform implementation. 

Media reports even suggest that Aadhaar was accepted as valid documentation in Patna even before the Supreme Court's directive, while it was rejected elsewhere. In this context, the top court’s suggestion to expand the list of acceptable documents offers the ECI a critical opportunity to make the voter list revision process more inclusive and less prone to excluding marginalised citizens. 

Whether Aadhaar, EPIC, and ration cards are being accepted in the field can only be verified through on-the-ground reporting.

The issue clearly moved beyond bureaucratic procedure – it now strikes at the heart of democratic participation and electoral fairness. This case is no longer limited to the issue of voter ID documents; it is a test of the institutions that underpin and govern Indian democracy. 

While the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the ECI’s constitutional mandate under Article 324 is to enable – not hinder – democratic participation, it scheduled the next hearing for July 28, just four days before the draft roll is due. By then, the process will be nearly complete, strengthening the ECI’s position to argue that the revision can proceed in time for the assembly election, effectively presenting a fait accompli. 

Still, the apex court has kept the door open to reviewing the process, allowing for amendments or suspension if legal flaws become evident.

The legal scrutiny in the Bihar case is a stark reminder that procedural lapses and bureaucratic overreach are not mere technicalities, they threaten the core promise of constitutional equality. 

In a democracy, the right to vote is more than a legal entitlement; it is the bedrock of political participation and legitimacy. Systemic or selective exclusions from electoral rolls, whether deliberate or inadvertent, amount to a denial of that right. In India, such exclusions strike at the heart of the nation’s commitment to ensuring that every citizen, regardless of caste, class, or documentation status, enjoys equal access to the democratic process.

Zoya Hasan is Professor Emerita, Centre for Political Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.