SC Refuses To Stay SIR In Bihar

However, the apex court directed the ECI to continue accepting Aadhaar cards and voter ID cards for the ongoing SIR exercise in Bihar, in compliance with its earlier order, stating that both documents carry a “presumption of genuineness.”

A two-judge bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said it would fix the schedule for the final hearing on Tuesday.

Appearing for the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan urged the court to grant interim relief by staying the publication of the draft rolls scheduled for August 1. He argued that the electoral rolls should not be finalised in the interim.

The court, however, observed that its previous order had clearly noted that the petitioners did not press for interim relief, and hence such a stay could not be granted now. “The matter will be interpreted once and for all,” the bench said.

Sankaranarayanan submitted that the request for interim relief was not pursued earlier because the court had assured that the matter would be listed for hearing before August 1.

The bench also noted the ECI’s submission that enumeration forms under the SIR could still be submitted even after the publication of the draft rolls.

The top court said: “Don’t undermine the power of the court. Trust us. If the court agrees with your submission and finds any illegality, it will quash everything then and there.”

On July 10, a bench led by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia had directed the ECI to consider Aadhaar, voter ID, and ration cards as valid documents, while allowing the commission to continue the SIR exercise.

On Monday, the current bench said it prima facie agreed with the July 10 order, and noted that the ECI, in its counter affidavit, had accepted Aadhaar, voter ID cards, and ration cards as valid for the purpose of the SIR.

“As far as ration cards are concerned, we can say they can be easily forged. But Aadhaar and voter ID cards have some sanctity and carry a presumption of genuineness. You continue accepting these documents,” the bench said.

Sankaranarayanan countered that despite the poll panel’s affidavit, ground reports suggested that Aadhaar and voter ID cards were not being accepted at some locations.

Justice Kant pointed out that the ECI had listed 11 documents for the SIR process, and clarified that the list was exhaustive, not inclusive. He said Aadhaar and voter ID were among the documents being accepted for identification.

Appearing for the ECI, senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi argued that Aadhaar is not proof of citizenship, and voter ID was not being relied upon exclusively, as this was a revision exercise. He questioned the point of the SIR if previously issued documents were accepted without scrutiny.

Justice Kant responded: “Any document on earth can be forged. The Election Commission must deal with forgery on a case-by-case basis. Instead of en masse exclusion, there should be en masse inclusion.”

Justice Bagchi added that if none of the 11 documents were conclusive, as per the ECI’s own submission, then a person submitting only Aadhaar should not be excluded either.

Dwivedi clarified that the ECI was accepting Aadhaar and voter ID cards, but only along with supporting documents.

The bench directed all counsel representing different parties to submit their proposed timelines and estimated time required for arguments by July 29.

In its affidavit, the ECI defended the SIR process, stating that it aimed to ensure purity of elections by weeding out ineligible voters from the rolls.

The ECI justified its June 24, 2025 order authorising the SIR in Bihar, stating that all major political parties had been involved in the process and that more than 1.5 lakh booth-level agents were deployed to reach out to eligible voters. However, the same political parties were now opposing the exercise in court, the ECI noted.

In its rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner NGO argued: “The SIR order dated June 24, 2025, if not set aside, may arbitrarily and without due process disenfranchise lakhs of citizens, thereby undermining free and fair elections and the democratic process, both of which are part of the basic structure of the Constitution.”