The recent Supreme Court order in the case of Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) versus the Election Commission of India (ECI) in 2025, concerning the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, reflects a continuity with its landmark ruling in Lal Babu Hussain versus Electoral Registration Officer (1995). Both cases revolve around crucial issues related to citizenship verification, the potential exclusion of voters, and the fundamental constitutional right to vote.

Looking back at the Lal Babu Hussain case from 1995, the Election Commission attempted to classify certain voters as non-citizens. The Supreme Court firmly ruled that no individual should be compelled to prove their citizenship unless credible and specific evidence points to doubt regarding their status. Furthermore, the Court mandated that Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) conduct thorough inquiries, allowing affected voters the opportunity to submit all possible evidence to establish their citizenship. This decision, while grounded in constitutional principles, sparked considerable political backlash against the then-ruling Congress party.

In the present scenario, the issue concerns the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar. The legal framework governing electoral roll revisions is laid down by the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1950, and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. These laws provide for summary revisions and intensive revisions but do not explicitly recognize or authorize a “Special Intensive Revision.” Thus, the SIR exercise currently lacks clear statutory backing. The Election Commission’s rationale for introducing SIR is to eliminate non-citizens from the voter lists. However, this process is contentious on multiple grounds.

Firstly, the ECI relies solely on the 2003 electoral roll as the valid baseline, disregarding subsequent updates and revisions. Secondly, the Commission restricts acceptable proof of identity to a very narrow range of documents, notably excluding widely used identification such as Aadhaar cards and Electoral Photo Identity Cards (EPIC). This restrictive approach effectively shifts the burden of proof onto citizens, compelling them to establish their own citizenship rather than requiring the authorities to justify their exclusion. A comparable situation arose in 1994 in Delhi and Mumbai, where ration cards were initially not accepted as valid proof until the Bombay High Court intervened to rectify the situation.

The Supreme Court’s 2025 order addresses these concerns decisively. It directs the Election Commission to ensure that draft electoral rolls are made accessible and searchable by the public. It also mandates that the ECI provide clear reasons whenever a voter is excluded from the rolls. Importantly, the Court instructs the acceptance of a broader array of documents as proof of identity, including Aadhaar and EPIC, thus enhancing the inclusivity and fairness of the process.

This order carries significant implications. It upholds the principles of transparency and natural justice, shifting the focus from stringent citizenship verification towards ensuring the accuracy and inclusiveness of electoral rolls. It represents a balanced approach that protects voters’ rights without compromising the integrity of the electoral process.

The relationship between the Supreme Court and the Election Commission has generally been cooperative, with the judiciary supporting various ECI reforms over the years, such as mandatory asset declarations by candidates, disqualification of convicted politicians, and the introduction of the None of the Above (NOTA) option. Nevertheless, there have been rare moments of disagreement, exemplified by the Electoral Bonds case where the Supreme Court struck down the scheme as unconstitutional despite the ECI’s reluctance to challenge it. In the present matter, the Court’s directive is not a sharp rebuke but rather a gentle yet firm encouragement for greater transparency and accountability.

At stake are fundamental democratic principles. The original electoral rolls of 1951 were remarkably inclusive, extending voting rights even to the homeless and nameless, especially women, thereby safeguarding universal adult suffrage. In contrast, the SIR exercise risks fostering exclusionary practices that undermine this legacy.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s insistence on transparency and fairness in the revision of electoral rolls promises to strengthen citizen-centric democracy and prevent exclusionary tendencies. As India progresses toward the vision of Viksit Bharat@2047, reforms in voter registration must evolve into a technologically advanced, inclusive, and legally accountable system that fully upholds the constitutional guarantee of universal suffrage.