The Supreme Court has delivered a significant verdict on Bihar’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the voter list, upholding the Election Commission’s approach. Justice Surya Kant stated that Aadhaar cannot be accepted as conclusive proof of citizenship and must be verified.
During the hearing on the voter list revision in Bihar, Justice Kant emphasized, “Bihar is a part of India. If Bihar does not have certain documents, other states won’t have them either. What are these documents? For example, if someone is a central government employee, an identity card or document issued by a local authority or LIC could be used.”
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal pointed out that several key identity documents are rare among citizens — birth certificates are held by only 3.056% of people, passports by 2.7%, and matriculation certificates by 14.71%. Justice Kant responded that there must be some form of evidence to establish Indian citizenship, noting that such documents are routinely required for tasks like buying a SIM card or obtaining caste certificates.
Legality of the SIR Process in Question
Earlier in the hearing, Justice Kant asked whether the SIR process aligns with the law. “Tell us whether such a process can be initiated at all. If you say it’s permitted under a conditional scheme, we will review it accordingly. But if it’s not provided for in the Constitution, we will proceed differently,” he remarked. Senior advocate Gopal Shankaranarayanan claimed that the process had led to large-scale exclusions, with around 6.5 million people being left out. The bench noted that the scale of removals would depend on factual data and statistics.
Cases of ‘Living’ Voters Marked as Dead
Kapil Sibal also highlighted irregularities, stating that in one small constituency, 12 living individuals had been wrongly marked as deceased by Booth Level Officers (BLOs). In response, senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the Election Commission, clarified that the current voter list is only a draft roll. The court pressed the Commission to specify how many voters had been mistakenly identified as deceased.
Dwivedi acknowledged that in such a massive exercise, some errors are inevitable but argued that labeling living persons as dead is unacceptable. He added that no new inquiry is necessary at this stage.
If you want, I can also rewrite this in a crisp, headline-friendly breaking news style so it reads like a front-page political report. That would make it even more engaging for a news site.