No stay asked for by petitioners, SC order to save Bihar voters from disenfranchisement: Cong

New Delhi: The Congress on Friday said the Supreme Court order on pleas challenging the Election Commission's special intensive revision of electoral rolls in Bihar makes it clear that "no stay was asked for by any of the petitioners", and hoped the ruling will save a vast majority of voters from being disenfranchised.

The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Election Commission to consider Aadhaar, voter ID and ration cards as valid documents during its ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, set to go to polls later this year.

Calling SIR a "constitutional mandate", Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi considered the submissions of senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the EC, and permitted the poll panel to continue with the exercise in Bihar with over 7 crore voters.

In a post on X, Congress general secretary in-charge communications Jairam Ramesh said, "Following the Honble Supreme Court's order that has just come out officially, the Election Commission now has to include the EPIC, Aadhar cards, and Ration Cards in the Special Intensive Revision of the electoral rolls in Bihar. This will save a vast majority of voters from being disenfranchised," Ramesh said on X.

"Moreover the EC's spin on the no stay being given has been clearly exposed. Page 7 of the order makes it clear that no stay was asked for by any of the petitioners yesterday. Such deliberately misleading headline management does not befit a Constitutional authority," he said.

Hitting back at Ramesh, the BJP accused him of misinterpreting the Supreme Court observations.

"Stop misinterpreting the Supreme Court. The Court has not mandated the acceptance of any additional documents—it has merely said it may consider them. Justice Dhulia clearly stated that the Election Commission of India (ECI) is free to record valid reasons for excluding any document. The discretion lies with the ECI," BJP's IT department head Amit Malviya said in his post on X.

"Deliberately misrepresenting court observations is dangerous -- you could be held in contempt for attributing to the Court what it never said. Just ask Rahul Gandhi, who faced the consequences for a similar offence not long ago," he said.

Ramesh also tagged screenshots of the court order with his post.

"Since these cases will come up before the appropriate Court prior to August 1, 2025 which is the scheduled date for notification of Draft Electoral Rolls there is no occasion presently to pass any order on the ad interim stay applications, and the petitioners in any case do not press for a stay at this stage," the order said.

Depending on the reply of the Election Commission the petitioners would always be at liberty to press their plea for stay on the next date of listing, it said.

Terming the right to vote as an important right in a democratic country, the bench said, "We cannot stop a constitutional body from doing what it is supposed to do. Simultaneously, we will not let them do what they are not supposed to do."

The bench in its order further noted, "After hearing both sides, we are of the opinion that three questions are involved in this case. A, the very powers of the EC to undertake the exercise, B, the procedure and the manner in which the exercise is being undertaken, and C, the timing, including the timings given for preparation of draft electoral rolls, asking objections and making the final electoral roll, etcetera, which is very short, considering the fact that Bihar election are due in November 2025."

Underlining the need to hear the matter, the bench posted over 10 petitions challenging the drive on July 28.

The poll panel in the meantime was directed to file its response within a week following which the rejoinder from the petitioners could be filed a week thereafter.

The bench took on record the poll panel's statement that the list of 11 documents it had to consider for SIR was not exhaustive.

"Therefore, in our view, since the list is not exhaustive, it would be in the interest of justice if the ECI will also consider the following three documents, such as Aadhaar card, voter ID card, and ration card," the bench ordered.

The poll panel, represented by senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi and senior advocates K K Venugopal and Maninder Singh, however, objected to this part of the order.

"We are not saying you have to. It is up to you to consider. We are saying it looks that way. They are genuine. If you have a good reason to discard then discard it. But give reasons," Justice Dhulia remarked.