While asking the ECI to file the counter-affidavit by July 21, the top court fixed the batch of petitions for further hearing on July 28, 2025.

The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to continue with its Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar calling it a "constitutional mandate".

The SC asked the ECI to consider Aadhaar card, voter ID card and ration card as acceptable documents in its SIR in its electoral rolls undertaken ahead of the upcoming assembly polls in Bihar.

While refusing to stay the Bihar voter list revision, a partial working days of the top court bench, headed by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Joymalya Bagch asked the EC to complete the process.

"In our prima facie view, since the list is not exhaustive, in our opinion, it will be in the interest of justice, the ECI will also consider the Aadhaar card, Electoral Photo Identity Card issued by the Election Commission and the ration card," the bench said.

The apex court passed the direction after hearing a batch of petitions challenging the decision of the ECI to undertake the SIR of electoral rolls in poll-bound Bihar.

While asking the ECI to file the counter-affidavit by July 21, the top court fixed the batch of petitions for further hearing on July 28, 2025.

The apex court also clarified that it was not a direction to the ECI to include anyone's name in the roll solely on the basis of these documents - Aadhaar, Voter ID, Ration Card - and it has the discretion to accept or reject them.

The court noted the submissions of the ECI that the list was not exhaustive. "If you have good reason to discard Aadhar you do it, give reasons," it added.

During the course of the hearing on Thursday, the ECI argued that the list of eleven documents specified by it in its June 24 order as acceptable documents to show citizenship was not exhaustive and was illustrative.

The court questioned the ECI action, as to why it started the SIR exercise of electoral rolls in Bihar so late, although, it made clear that there is nothing wrong in SIR exercise but it should have been done months before the ensuing election.

Senior lawyer, Gopal Sankarnarayanan, for one of the petitioners, NGO- ADR, argued that the ECI's SIR drive was completely arbitrary and discriminatory. The guidelines provide certain classes of people who don't have to come within the revision exercise. Most importantly this exercise has no basis in law.

He told the Supreme Court that now with elections are months away, the ECI was saying in 30 days it will carry on this SIR of the entire roll. They said that they won't consider Aadhaar and they are even asking documents for parents.

"It is completely arbitrary and discriminatory. They give the clarification that if you are in the 2003 roll then you don't have to submit the documents but you still have to submit a fresh form. If you don't submit that fresh form you are out of the electoral roll," he said.

The top court was hearing the pleas filed by NGO- Association For Democratic Reforms (ADR), People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), Yogendra Yadav, Lok Sabha Member of Parliament (MP) from Trinamool Congress Party, Mahua Moitra, Rashtriya Janta Dal (RJD) MP Manoj Jha, Congress Party leader K C Venugopal and Mujahid Alam.

The petitioners from the top court sought a direction to set aside the ECI’s SIR order of 24, June, 2025.

"Issue a writ, order or direction setting aside Order and Communication dated 24.06.2025 and accompanying guidelines issued by ECI to conduct SIR of the electoral rolls in Bihar as being in violation of Articles 14, 19, 21, 325, 326 of the Constitution of India and provisions of Representation of People (RP) Act, 1950 and Registration of Electors Rules, 1960," said, the plea of ADR, filed in the apex court.

"The SIR order if not set aside, can arbitrarily and without due process disenfranchise lakhs of voters from electing their representatives, thereby disrupting free and fair elections and democracy in the country, which are part of basic structure of the Constitution," said the NGO ADR, in its plea filed in the top court.

The ADR said, the ECI by doing so, has shifted the onus of being on the voters' list from the State to citizens. It has excluded identification documents such as Aadhar or ration cards which further make marginalised communities and the poor more vulnerable to exclusion from voting.

Terming the ECI's order as unreasonable and impractical timeline to conduct SIR in Bihar, the petitioner, ADR said that with close proximity to state elections which are due in November 2025, there are lakhs of citizens (whose names did not appear in 2003 ER) who do not possess the documents as required under the SIR order.

There are many who may be able to procure the documents but the short timeline mentioned in directive may preclude them from being able to supply the same within the time period.

"Bihar is a state with high poverty and migration rates where many lack access to documents like birth certificates or parental records. As per estimates over 3 crore voters and more particularly from marginalized communities (such as SC, STs and migrant workers) could be excluded from voting due to the stringent requirements as mentioned in the SIR order," the ADR said.

Similarly, another petitioner, Moitra sought to stop the ECI from issuing similar directives in other states. She accused the poll body of acting at the behest of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and attempting to disenfranchise millions, particularly migrant and poor voters.

Jha, in his plea, said that the process is "not only hasty and ill-timed, but has the effect of disenfranchising crores of voters, thereby robbing them of their constitutional right to vote."

The petition of Jha, claimed that the decision, which has been taken without any consultation with the political parties, is "being used to justify aggressive and opaque revisions of electoral rolls that disproportionately target Muslim, Dalit and poor migrant communities, as such, they are not random patterns but are engineered exclusions."

Jha - who belonged to the largest opposition party in the State of Bihar - submitted to the top court that the short deadlines make the whole process unreasonable and unworkable.

"The Impugned order (ECI's) is discriminatory, unreasonable and arbitrary and violates Article 14, 21 325, 326," the petitioner, Jha, stated.