The Election Commission of India (ECI) on Monday defended its ongoing special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, telling the Supreme Court that Aadhaar, voter identity or ration cards cannot be accepted as proof of voter eligibility and asserting its constitutional authority to demand evidence of citizenship.
In a detailed affidavit submitted on Monday evening, the poll body argued that its powers under Article 324 of the Constitution provide it with plenary authority to supervise and direct all aspects of elections, including the preparation of electoral rolls.
This constitutional mandate, it contended, empowers the Commission to scrutinise voter eligibility, including the requirement of Indian citizenship as prescribed under Article 326. The poll watchdog said failing to prove citizenship for voter registration did not amount to termination of one’s citizenship
The affidavit comes in response to a batch of petitions filed by several Opposition parliamentarians and civil society organisations, which challenge the legality, timing, and manner of the SIR exercise.
The Supreme Court, on July 10, agreed to examine the validity of SIR and urged that the draft rolls should not be finalised pending further orders. The court had also asked ECI to consider Aadhaar cards, voter IDs and ration cards, as acceptable proof of eligibility for inclusion in electoral rolls.
The poll body appeared to reject the top court’s suggestion, but underlined that the list of 11 documents, which are being currently accepted, is “illustrative and not exhaustive.”
The matter is listed for hearing on July 28. Opposition parties and activists have alleged that the exercise could lead to mass disenfranchisement or violates statutory provisions.
Refuting the petitioners’ contention that only the central government is competent to determine citizenship under the Citizenship Act, 1955, ECI argued that this interpretation is “patently erroneous” and ignores its constitutional and statutory duties.
“The exclusive powers of the central government under Section 9 are confined to reviewing the acquisition of foreign citizenship… ECI is fully competent to require a person claiming citizenship by birth to produce relevant documents for inclusion in the electoral roll,” the affidavit stated.
The commission said its powers stem not just from Article 324, but also from Article 326, and Sections 16 and 19 of the Representation of People Act, 1950 (RP Act), which obligate it to ensure that only eligible citizens, who meet the criteria of age, ordinary residence, and Indian citizenship, are included in the rolls.
Article 324 vests ECI with the power of superintendence, direction and control over the conduct of elections and preparation of electoral rolls, while Article 326 mandates that only Indian “citizens” aged 18 or above are entitled to vote. Sections 16 and 19 of the 1950 Act further define the qualifications and disqualifications for voter registration, including citizenship, age, and ordinary residence.
Notably, the commission clarified that failure to prove citizenship for voter registration did not amount to termination of one’s citizenship. “Determination of non-eligibility under Article 326 will not lead to cancellation of citizenship,” it stated, while stressing that the SIR is an inclusionary exercise aimed at ensuring purity of electoral rolls.
In its affidavit, ECI also explained why Aadhaar, ration cards, and existing Elector Photo Identity Cards (EPIC) have not been included as standalone documents for establishing voter eligibility.
“Aadhaar is merely proof of identity… it does not help in screening the eligibility under Article 326,” the commission stated, though it clarified that Aadhaar can be used to supplement other documents. Ration cards too were not accepted as reliable proof due to the “widespread existence of fake ration cards,” though EROs (Electoral Registration Officers) have discretion to accept them on a case-by-case basis.
As for EPICs, the body underscored that treating voter ID cards as conclusive proof would defeat the purpose of a “de novo” revision. “EPICs are by-products of earlier electoral rolls and cannot substitute the verification process mandated for fresh preparation. Automatic continuance would be contrary to the scheme and purpose of a fresh revision,” it said.
The SIR guidelines instead call for submission of one of 11 listed documents, or equivalent records such as proof of inclusion in the 2003 electoral roll, with the commission emphasising that the list is “illustrative and not exhaustive.”
The ongoing SIR exercise in Bihar has come under legal and political scrutiny for its timing — months ahead of the assembly polls in Bihar, and for the short 30-day timelines set for its three phases: enumeration, claims and objections, and final publication.
During the last hearing on July 10, the Supreme Court flagged concerns over whether such a massive statewide exercise could be concluded in time without compromising accuracy or disenfranchising voters. The court even mooted the possibility of delinking SIR from the upcoming elections.
Petitioners in the case include MPs Manoj Jha, KC Venugopal, and Mahua Moitra, along with NGOs such as the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), who have raised concerns that ECI’s process may disproportionately impact poor, migrant, and marginalised communities unable to furnish documentary proof.
In its affidavit, ECI rejected these claims, calling the petitions “premature,” “unsustainable,” and based on “news reports without material evidence.” It also claimed widespread political support for the exercise. “All political parties had appreciated the necessity and correctness of the exercise… and have been co-operating,” it noted.
The commission reported that as of July 18, enumeration forms had been collected from over 7.11 crore electors, amounting to 90.12% of the total 79 million electors in Bihar. When accounting for deceased, permanently shifted voters, and multiple enrolments, the form collection phase had effectively covered 94.68% of the electorate, it maintained.
Stressing that there are multiple checks and balances to prevent arbitrary exclusion, ECI said no voter’s name will be deleted without due process and adherence to natural justice. “The SIR exercise adds to the purity of elections by weeding out ineligible persons… every attempt has been made to ensure that no eligible elector is excluded.”
The commission also reminded the court that voter eligibility is governed not just by administrative procedures but is anchored in constitutional principles. “The right to vote is not an unqualified fundamental right under Article 19 or Article 21 but is a constitutional right under Article 326, subject to prescribed qualifications,” it stated.