<p>The Supreme Court has made the right observations and asked the right questions of the Election Commission of India (ECI) about the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls being conducted in Bihar. </p><p>The Court asked the Commission why the exercise was being done so close to the Assembly election. It expressed concern over the exclusion of Aadhaar from the 11 listed documents required to prove eligibility as a voter. </p><p>Answers were also sought on why the ECI was getting into the citizenship question, which is in the domain of the Home Ministry. The Court noted that if citizenship was the issue, the Commission should have acted earlier.</p>.<p>These concerns were also articulated by the Opposition parties about the hurried revision. The Commission has a valid argument when it says it has the power to clean and update the voters’ list. But it should not be done by excluding genuine voters. </p><p>The SIR would most likely do that and disenfranchise large numbers of people. It would be extremely difficult for many voters to procure some of the 11 prescribed documents, such as the birth certificate and school record, as proof of eligibility. </p><p>According to reports, in 2007, only 25% of the births were registered – the figure assumes significance because this is the birth year of people who became eligible to vote in 2025. Only about 15% had passed Class 10 as per 2022 estimates, and just 2% of the population have a passport. The question as to why the Aadhaar card, the ration card, or the voter ID could not serve as proof had no convincing answer. </p> <p>If it is citizenship that the Commission wants to ascertain, as it claims, some of the documents it has listed do not prove that. They are identity markers just as the Aadhaar, the ration card, and the electoral ID cards are. Then why exclude them?</p>.<p>The Commission had, at one stage, said the voters could submit enumeration forms and provide documents later, but it clarified that the documents should be produced before July 25. The idea to shift the burden of proof to the voters is flawed. It is for the State to prove an individual to be a citizen and hence, a voter. </p><p>Many would be disappointed that there was no stay on the SIR, though the Court expressed concern over most aspects of the exercise. It is now for the Commission to respond to the Court’s suggestion to consider Aadhaar card, voter’s ID, and ration card as proof for registration, which has effectively validated criticism of the restrictive nature of the revision.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court has made the right observations and asked the right questions of the Election Commission of India (ECI) about the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls being conducted in Bihar. </p><p>The Court asked the Commission why the exercise was being done so close to the Assembly election. It expressed concern over the exclusion of Aadhaar from the 11 listed documents required to prove eligibility as a voter. </p><p>Answers were also sought on why the ECI was getting into the citizenship question, which is in the domain of the Home Ministry. The Court noted that if citizenship was the issue, the Commission should have acted earlier.</p>.<p>These concerns were also articulated by the Opposition parties about the hurried revision. The Commission has a valid argument when it says it has the power to clean and update the voters’ list. But it should not be done by excluding genuine voters. </p><p>The SIR would most likely do that and disenfranchise large numbers of people. It would be extremely difficult for many voters to procure some of the 11 prescribed documents, such as the birth certificate and school record, as proof of eligibility. </p><p>According to reports, in 2007, only 25% of the births were registered – the figure assumes significance because this is the birth year of people who became eligible to vote in 2025. Only about 15% had passed Class 10 as per 2022 estimates, and just 2% of the population have a passport. The question as to why the Aadhaar card, the ration card, or the voter ID could not serve as proof had no convincing answer. </p> <p>If it is citizenship that the Commission wants to ascertain, as it claims, some of the documents it has listed do not prove that. They are identity markers just as the Aadhaar, the ration card, and the electoral ID cards are. Then why exclude them?</p>.<p>The Commission had, at one stage, said the voters could submit enumeration forms and provide documents later, but it clarified that the documents should be produced before July 25. The idea to shift the burden of proof to the voters is flawed. It is for the State to prove an individual to be a citizen and hence, a voter. </p><p>Many would be disappointed that there was no stay on the SIR, though the Court expressed concern over most aspects of the exercise. It is now for the Commission to respond to the Court’s suggestion to consider Aadhaar card, voter’s ID, and ration card as proof for registration, which has effectively validated criticism of the restrictive nature of the revision.</p>
