Bihar survey to continue, top Court suggests 3 IDs must be considered

Mangalore Today News Network

New Delhi, July 10, 2025: Aadhaar, ration cards, and an identity card issued by the Election Commission itself should be considered as valid documents to re-verify voters’ identities - a process that has been allowed to continue - ahead of the Bihar election this year, the Supreme Court observed Thursday.

The observation came after a high-stakes hearing over a ’special intensive revision’ of the state’s electoral roll, an exercise criticised as "arbitrary" and "discriminatory" in forcing only voters registered after 2003 to to re-verify themselves and to do so without using common government IDs like the Aadhaar or even the poll panel’s own Electoral Photo Identity Card.

Approached by a clutch of petitioners - including the Association for Democratic Reforms and Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, who said she feared a similar exercise before the election in Bengal next year - the court also asked three important questions of the poll panel.

These included asking the EC to explain which section of the law - the Representation of Peoples Act - allowed it to conduct this exercise. "There is either ’summary revision’ or ’intensive revision’. Where is ’special intensive revision’?" the poll panel was asked.

1. Explain the panel’s authority to conduct a ’special intensive revision’,
2. Explain the validity of the review procedure, and
3. Explain the timing of the exercise, i.e., just before an election.

The EC was also asked why it had linked this exercise to the 2025 Bihar election, another red flag by petitioners who said a voter list revision could not take place months before polling.

These questions will hopefully be answered when the court re-convenes July 28.

’Serious Doubts’: Supreme Court’s Tough Talk

Earlier today the court indicated the problem was not with a revision of the voter list but the timing, and said it had "serious doubts" over the EC’s ability to complete the task - without excluding genuine voters and allowing individuals the right to appeal - in time for the election.

"Your exercise is not the problem... it is the timing. We have serious doubts if you can manage this exercise. With such a big population (an estimated eight crore people) being subject to this ’intensive review’, is it possible to link this to the forthcoming election?" the court asked.

"... a person will be disenfranchised ahead of the election and s/he won’t have the time to defend the exclusion before voting," Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia noted.

"There is nothing wrong in this intensive process so non-citizen do not remain on rolls... but it should be de hors (i.e., conducted separately from) this election," Justice Joymala Bagchi said.

During the hearing the petitioners and the court questioned the decision to disallow government IDs like Aadhaar, PAN (Permanent Account Number) and the poll panel’s own card.

The court pointed out the EC’s enumeration (exercise) is tied to the identity of an individual, i.e., whether s/he is, in fact, a citizen of India and resident of Bihar and, therefore, should be allowed to vote. "... the entire exercise is primarily about identity only. We feel Aadhaar should have been there (on the list of approved government-issued IDs)," the Supreme Court had observed.

’Aadhaar Not Proof Of...’

Responding to the arguments, the EC pointed out the Aadhar is not, technically, proof of citizenship because certain foreign nationals can also be issued the ID. "It is not a proof of certain things... it is only a proof of identity. Each document has a purpose and for this purpose the Aadhaar is not usable."

Dwivedi rejected the court saying other governemnt IDs, such as a caste certificate, are "based on Aadhaar". So how can caste certificate be accepted and Aadhaar rejected, the court asked.

"Issue of a caste certificate is not based only on Aadhaar... Aadhar is not proof of citizenship or domicile. If someone objects that a person is not who s/he claims to be, then Aadhar can be used."

On the overall need for a ’special intensive revision’, Dwivedi said, "Some petitions say around 1.1 crore persons have died and another 70 lakh have migrated. That itself makes a case for intensive revision."

The EC also insisted, in response to the court asking questions about appeals against disenfranchisement, that all those whose names had been removed would get a chance to explain.

Political Row Over ’Special Revision’

The Congress and the Rashtriya Janata Dal - key members of the opposition Mahagathbandhan bloc - have been vocal in their critique of the voter list revision, arguing it seeks to exclude sone voters and favour the ruling alliance.

That point was mentioned today by senior advocate Vrinda Grover, who said, "This is not an ordinary exercise... it is designed to exclude the poor, the migrant labourer, and vulnerable sections of society.