Supreme Court Allows Intensive Electoral Roll Revision in Bihar

The Supreme Court has given a significant verdict regarding the special intensive revision of the voter list in Bihar. The court stated that the process of voter list revision will continue in Bihar and emphasized that it cannot interfere in the functioning of a constitutional body like the Election Commission.

Concerns Raised About Timing

During the hearing, the court posed several questions to the Election Commission, particularly regarding the timing of this decision. The bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi also questioned the petitioners.

The bench asked Gopal Sankaranarayanan, the advocate for the petitioners, to explain what exactly was wrong with the Election Commission's actions.

Petitioners' Arguments

Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan argued that while provisions for voter list revision exist in law, the current process being undertaken is being called a "Special Intensive Revision", a term not defined previously. He pointed out that although a similar process occurred in 2003, the number of voters then was significantly lower compared to the over 70 million voters now in Bihar.

He claimed that the process is being carried out hastily, which raises concerns.

Supreme Court’s Stand

Senior advocate Gopal S. mentioned that this is part of a national-level exercise, and Bihar has simply been chosen as the starting point.

To this, the Supreme Court responded: "We are not getting into that right now."

Three Key Questions from the Supreme Court

• The Election Commission’s power to conduct elections
• The method of exercising that power
• The very short timeline, which ends in November, with notification due before that

Justice Dhulia added that a full hearing is necessary. The matter has been listed for further hearing on July 28, and responses are to be submitted by July 21.

Supreme Court’s Suggestions to Election Commission

The court observed that the list of 11 documents required for voter verification is incomplete. It recommended including Aadhaar cards, voter ID cards, and ration cards to ensure fairness. The court noted that this would satisfy the petitioners as well.

Meanwhile, the petitioner clarified they are not asking for an interim stay, but a complete halt to the process.