Supreme Court Urges Election Commission to Embrace Voter Inclusion Amid Controversial Roll Revision

Supreme Court's Directive on Voter Inclusion

The Supreme Court issued a directive on July 28, instructing the Election Commission of India (ECI) to prioritize a voter verification strategy that emphasizes “mass inclusion rather than mass exclusion.” The ECI's primary goal is to identify eligible voters across the nation and ensure their names are added to the electoral rolls. This objective must remain intact and not be compromised due to any external pressures from the ruling government. This ruling is part of a legal challenge regarding the ECI's current Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, which has been mired in controversy. The Supreme Court has raised concerns over the ECI's refusal to recognize Aadhaar and Electoral Photo Identity Card (EPIC) as valid forms of identification during this revision process.

The Bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, dismissed the ECI's claim that Aadhaar and EPIC could be forged, highlighting that “10 out of 11 documents already accepted by the Commission can be equally fake.” The Court emphasized that while forgery is a possibility, it should not lead to the blanket exclusion of widely recognized documents like Aadhaar or voter ID cards.

Justice Kant pointed out that any document could potentially be fraudulent, and the issue should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The Bench expressed skepticism towards the ECI's arguments, noting that “any document on Earth can be forged.”

These remarks were made during the hearing of multiple petitions contesting the ECI's June 24 order to initiate SIR in Bihar ahead of the State Assembly elections scheduled for October–November 2025. The Court insisted that Aadhaar and EPIC should be accepted as valid identity proofs for the SIR process, urging the ECI to refrain from excluding valid identity documentation. Previously, on June 10, the vacation Bench had advised the poll panel to consider Aadhaar and EPIC, which are issued by the ECI, as acceptable forms of identification.

The Bench reviewed the situation and chose not to impose an interim halt on the publication of the draft electoral rolls under the SIR set for August 1, despite requests from petitioners. According to the SIR guidelines, voters not listed on the 2003 rolls must provide proof of Indian citizenship. For individuals born after December 2004, documentation from both parents is required, and if a parent is a foreign national, passport and visa records at the time of birth must be submitted. This requirement has faced significant backlash from civil society, with petitioners including the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), People’s Union for Civil Liberties, TMC MP Mahua Moitra, RJD MP Manoj Jha, and activist Yogendra Yadav.

Notably, on September 26, 2018, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act while declaring certain provisions unconstitutional. Importantly, the majority opinion did not invalidate Section 7, which mandates Aadhaar for accessing State subsidies and benefits. This should invalidate the ECI's argument that it cannot include names of individuals who are not verified citizens. If individuals receiving State benefits through Aadhaar are later found not to be citizens, the responsibility lies with the administration. Furthermore, the ECI cannot take on the role of determining bona fide citizenship, which is the responsibility of the Union Home Ministry.

The actions of the ECI regarding the SIR appear to be an attempt to implement the National Register of Citizens (NRC) indirectly. The Union Home Ministry previously faced backlash in Assam for similar actions. It seems the responsibility has now shifted to the ECI to avoid public discontent while pursuing its political agenda of altering the country's demographic landscape. Aadhaar plays a crucial role in this process, and if the ECI denies its validity for such a significant task as the SIR, opposition parties should recognize this shift in government strategy and leverage it. The BJP government previously enforced Aadhaar, believing it would assist in disenfranchising those they deemed undesirable. Now, they find themselves hindered by the very tool they once championed. Negative intentions often yield negative outcomes.

The Supreme Court's message leading up to the final hearing is clear: Democracy necessitates inclusion, not exclusion.