THE JHARKHAND STORY DESK
New Delhi, August 12: The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard the matter related to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the Bihar voter list. Justice Surya Kant upheld the Election Commission’s stand on SIR, observing that an Aadhaar card cannot be treated as conclusive proof of citizenship and must be duly verified.
Court Seeks Clarity on Legal Basis of SIR
During the proceedings, Justice Surya Kant asked the petitioners to first clarify whether the SIR process is legally valid and whether the Election Commission has the authority to conduct such an exercise.
He said that if the petitioners consider the process permissible under a conditional scheme, the court will examine it accordingly, but if it is not provided for in the Constitution, action will follow on that basis.
Also Read- India ends Asian U19 & U22 Boxing Championships 2025 with 27 medals
Petitioners Flag Large-Scale Deletions
Petitioners’ counsel Gopal Shankar Narayan recalled that in a previous hearing, the court had said it would intervene if large-scale name deletions occurred. He pointed out that the draft roll indicated the removal of 65 lakh names, yet the Commission had not published any related list.
The bench remarked that if out of 7.9 crore voters, 7.24 crore had responded, the claim of 6.5 lakh missing voters did not hold. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal argued that only 3.056% of people possess a birth certificate, 2.7% have a passport, and 14.71% have a matriculation certificate.
Concerns Over Document Availability and Citizenship Proof
Justice Surya Kant responded that there must be some document to establish one’s citizenship, noting that most people possess certain certificates such as OBC, SC, or ST documents. He added that Bihar is part of India, and if people there lack such documents, the same would be true for people in other states.
Allegations of Living Voters Declared Dead
The issue of living persons being declared dead was also raised. Sibal informed the court that in one constituency, 12 living people had been recorded as deceased due to negligence by Booth Level Officers (BLOs). The court asked whether these people were present in court, to which Sibal replied that some of them, including petitioners, were indeed in attendance.
Also Read- Jharkhand News: Nilamber Pitamber University faces hiccups in holding convocation
Sibal further argued that under the rules, a thorough revision of the electoral roll requires preparing the list afresh. He alleged that before issuing the draft roll, the Election Commission neither distributed Form 4 door-to-door nor collected documents, in violation of Rules 10 and 12.
Election Commission Defends Draft Roll Process
Responding for the Election Commission, advocate Rakesh Dwivedi said the document in question was only a draft roll and those with objections could file claims for corrections. He stated that some errors are inevitable in such a large-scale exercise, which is why a correction process and time period have been provided.
Justice Surya Kant told the petitioners that if any living person has been declared dead, they should be produced in court. Sibal countered that such cases occur in almost every booth and it would not be feasible to bring all affected individuals before the court.
