National News: The Supreme Court began hearing a challenge to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Bihar's voter list. Petitioners questioned the EC's method, especially excluding Aadhaar and skipping door-to-door checks. Justices demanded proof of bias or illegality in the revision process. They emphasized that unless petitioners can show serious flaws, the EC’s constitutional duty cannot be interrupted. The Election Commission told the court it hasn't received full copies of the petitions, making it hard to respond in detail. It maintained that voter revision is lawful and essential. The Commission cited precedent from 2003 and justified its urgency by pointing to Bihar’s large voter base. It denied allegations of bias or haste.
What Makes SIR Controversial
Petitioners argue that while SIR isn’t illegal, the way it’s being implemented raises concerns. With over 7 crore voters in Bihar, they say the revision is being done too rapidly. They allege that crucial ID proofs like Aadhaar and Voter ID are being ignored. This, they say, risks large-scale disenfranchisement. Senior lawyers claimed Aadhaar and Voter ID are being wrongly excluded as valid documents. They argued that if these are India’s most trusted IDs, how can they be sidelined in such a vital process? The court pressed petitioners to explain how this exclusion harms genuine voters.
SC Asks for Clear Grounds
Justices Bopanna, Dhulia, and Bagchi asked petitioners to stick to the core issue. “Don’t wander in alleys while we’re on the highway,” Justice Dhulia quipped. The court said it’s not opposing EC’s power but wants clarity on whether procedures are fair, transparent, and inclusive under the law. Kapil Sibal questioned the EC’s authority to determine citizenship. Vrinda Grover slammed the rejection of documents like ration cards. Both pointed out that most citizens don’t possess passports, so limiting ID acceptance could unfairly block eligible voters. The court appeared concerned over the scale of potential exclusions.
Final Word on Revision Rights
Justice Bagchi cited Section 21(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1950. It allows the EC to carry out special revisions. The bench acknowledged the legality of the process but stressed the need for sensitivity and proportionality. The case continues with the burden now on petitioners to show hard proof.
