The affidavit was submitted in compliance with the apex court’s July 10 directive, which had asked the Commission to file its counter-affidavit by July 21.

The Election Commission of India (ECI) on Monday evening filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court defending the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, asserting that the exercise was undertaken to restore public confidence and ensure the integrity of the electoral rolls.

The affidavit was submitted in compliance with the apex court’s July 10 directive, which had asked the Commission to file its counter-affidavit by July 21.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the matter further on July 28.

The matter is being heard by a vacation Bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi. In its July 10 order, while refusing to stay the revision of electoral rolls in Bihar, the Bench had directed the Commission to proceed with the process.

“In our prima facie view, since the list is not exhaustive, it would be in the interest of justice for the ECI to also consider the Aadhaar card, Electoral Photo Identity Card issued by the Election Commission, and the ration card,” the Bench had said.

The petitions, challenging the ECI’s June 24 order initiating the SIR in poll-bound Bihar, were filed by civil society organisations and political leaders, including the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, RJD MP Manoj Jha, Congress leader K.C. Venugopal, and Mujahid Alam, among others.

In its affidavit, the Commission informed the court that over 90% of electors had already submitted enumeration forms. "Apart from ensuring that no eligible elector is left out of the rolls, special attention is being given to marginalised and vulnerable communities,” the ECI said.

The Commission also defended the exclusion of Aadhaar from the list of documents used in the revision exercise, stating that it does not serve as proof of citizenship under Article 326 of the Constitution. However, it clarified that the list of acceptable documents was indicative and not exhaustive.

The ECI submitted that the SIR exercise was initiated following concerns raised by political parties across the spectrum. "This is the first time that all political parties have been involved at such a scale in an intensive revision exercise, with over 1.5 lakh Booth Level Agents (BLAs) working alongside Booth Level Officers (BLOs) to reach out to every eligible elector," the affidavit stated.

The Commission contended that many of the figures cited by the petitioners were outdated and not representative of the current scenario. “The full reports have not been annexed and the Petitioners have deliberately suppressed the fact that these reports do not reflect contemporary data,” it said.

The ECI further pointed out that some petitioners were Members of Parliament and legislative assemblies representing recognised political parties in Bihar, and that these parties were actively participating in the SIR process by appointing BLAs. “These facts were within the Petitioners' knowledge but were not disclosed before this Court,” the affidavit alleged.

The Commission reiterated that the revision exercise was being conducted transparently and had received support from political parties across the board. “All parties have appreciated the necessity and correctness of the exercise and are cooperating to ensure its timely completion,” it added.

While justifying the SIR, the Commission maintained that Aadhaar was not proof of citizenship, a requirement essential for electoral roll inclusion.

The Supreme Court had earlier questioned the timing of the SIR, noting that while there was no objection to the exercise per se, it ought to have been initiated earlier given the upcoming Assembly elections in November 2025.

In its plea, the ADR sought the quashing of the ECI’s June 24 order, contending that it violated Articles 14, 19, 21, 325, and 326 of the Constitution, as well as provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.

The NGO argued that the SIR order could disenfranchise lakhs of voters without due process, thereby undermining free and fair elections. It further contended that the Commission had improperly shifted the burden of proof of voter eligibility from the State to individual citizens, and that the exclusion of documents like Aadhaar and ration cards would disproportionately affect poor and marginalised communities.

Calling the SIR “unreasonable” and “impractical,” the ADR noted that many citizens, particularly those from marginalised backgrounds in Bihar—a State with high poverty and migration rates—lacked access to documents such as birth certificates or parental records. “Over three crore voters, especially SCs, STs, and migrant workers, risk being excluded from the electoral rolls due to the stringent documentary requirements and tight deadlines,” the petition stated.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for RJD MP Manoj Jha, contended that the ECI lacked the power to determine citizenship through the SIR. Echoing similar concerns, MP Mahua Moitra accused the Commission of acting at the behest of the ruling BJP and seeking to disenfranchise poor and migrant voters.

Jha, in his separate plea, alleged that the exercise was not only hasty and ill-timed but also aimed at disenfranchising large sections of the electorate, including Muslims, Dalits, and migrant workers. He contended that the process lacked consultation with political parties and amounted to “engineered exclusions.”

“The impugned order is discriminatory, unreasonable, and arbitrary, and violates Articles 14, 21, 325, and 326 of the Constitution,” Jha submitted.