Supreme Court Says Expanded Document List for Bihar Voter Roll Revision is ‘Voter-Friendly’
The Supreme Court on Wednesday asserted that the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) expanded list of acceptable documents for the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in poll-bound Bihar is in fact “voter-friendly” and provides electors with more options. This observation came during a hearing on petitions challenging the ECI’s draft voter roll revision, which the opposition alleges could lead to mass disenfranchisement.
During the proceedings, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the petitioners, argued that the required documents under SIR “have minimum coverage in Bihar and hence exclusionary” . However, Justice Joymalya Bagchi countered this by remarking, “…the expansion of documents followed from [summary revision] to SIR is infact voter-friendly and not exclusionary. It gives them more options” . Justice Surya Kant added that requiring “any of the 11 reliable documents” is not anti-voter, but rather inclusive .
The court noted that the number of documents accepted for the SIR has increased to 11, up from seven in previous summary revisions, which they consider an improvement . Despite the court’s view, Singhvi maintained that while the number of documents might be high, their coverage among Bihar’s population is minimal, rendering the expansion exclusionary in practice.
He highlighted that Aadhaar, which has the highest coverage, is not accepted as conclusive proof of citizenship for this process, and documents like Indian passports have very low penetration in Bihar . Singhvi also pointed out that other documents, such as those related to water, electricity, or gas connections, are not widely held by the majority of the population in Bihar, and that residence certificates do not exist in the state . He further argued that the exercise is “skewed against women” .
Justice Surya Kant acknowledged Bihar’s intellectual contributions but emphasized that the litigation largely appeared to be “a case of trust deficiency” . This latest discussion follows the Supreme Court’s earlier observation that Aadhaar cannot be treated as conclusive proof of citizenship, aligning with the Election Commission’s stance
