The ADR has called the Bihar SIR a “fraudulent exercise” and termed the poll body’s rejection of Aadhaar “patently absurd”.

The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) in its counter-affidavit in the Supreme Court challenging the Election Commission (EC)’s ongoing special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar has said that the poll body’s argument that it has the power to determine citizenship is “untenable” and defies previous court judgements.

Calling the exercise a “grave fraud” on voters, the ADR – which is one of the petitioners in the case in the Supreme Court – said that the EC’s rejection of Aadhaar as a document that can be used to prove eligibility is “patently absurd”.

On Saturday (July 26), the ADR filed its counter-affidavit in the Supreme Court ahead of the next hearing scheduled for July 28.

Earlier this week, the EC in its affidavit submitted to the court that it has the authority to seek proof of citizenship and also turned down its suggestion that Aadhaar, voter identity and ration cards be considered as valid documents in its controversial exercise.

While the EC said that it has the powers to scrutinise citizenship under Article 326, which “is constitutionally mandated and crystallised by virtue of RP [Representation of the People] Act 1950 and this power flows directly from the provisions of Article 324 read with 326 and Sections 16 and 19 of the RP Act 1950”, the ADR in its rejoinder has said that the EC’s stance is contrary to the Supreme Court judgement in the 1995 Lal Babu Hussain case.

The ADR said that the judgment had held that the “burden of proof of citizenship would be on those who are registering anew and not on those whose names are already on the electoral roll”.

It also pointed to the Inderjit Barua v. Election Commission of India (1985) judgment, in which it was “held that presence on the existing electoral roll was prima facie proof of citizenship, and that the burden of showing otherwise lies on the objector”.

The rejoinder further said that “there is no reason” provided by the poll body on why the processes under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 had to be replaced with the need for additional documents as well as an enumeration form.

“ECI has provided  no  data on number  of complaints received against inclusion of foreign  nationals or illegal  migrants in the electoral rolls of Bihar, and rest of the country. In the absence of such evidence, ECI’s argument that inclusion in electoral rolls through summary revisions are only provisional and only those added or verified through intensive revisions like SIR have more authenticity cannot be accepted,” it said.

‘Aadhaar exclusion patently absurd’

In its rejoinder, the ADR has termed as “patently absurd” the EC’s refusal to take the Supreme Court’s suggestion of including Aadhaar cards, ration cards and voter IDs along with the 11 documents it has listed as proof of eligibility.

The counter-affidavit said that the fact that the Aadhaar card is one of the documents accepted for issuing a permanent residence certificate, OBC/SC/ST certificate and passport – three of the 11 documents listed by the poll body – makes the EC’s rejection of Aadhaar (which is the most widely held document) under the instant SIR order “patently absurd”.

It noted that according to the EC’s affidavit, the total number of residence certificates (13.89 crore) and caste certificates (8.72 crore) issued between 2011 and 2025 exceed the number of existing voters on the electoral rolls.

It also said that the 11 documents included by the poll body are “equally susceptible to being procured on the basis of fake or false documentation, thereby rendering the ECI’s rationale baseless, inconsistent and arbitrary”.

‘Grave fraud on voters’

The ADR said that the way the exercise is being conducted is a “grave fraud on voters and must be set aside”. It referred to instances of booth-level officers filling out forms, acknowledgement slips not being provided after filling forms and instances of voters reporting false cases of forms being filled, among other things.

The affidavit also questioned why the EC has referred to the 2003 exercise – the last intensive revision that was conducted in Bihar – but has not attached the orders and guidelines concerned with its affidavit.

The ADR also asked why the electoral rolls prepared in January are being rejected when the lists are updated continually to account for those who are deceased, migrated and registered at multiple places.

It also said that the EC’s statistics on ground coverage are meaningless since the inclusion of electors in draft rolls holds no meaning without their submitting supportive documents.

“This fraudulent exercise, conducted under the guise of electoral integrity, violates principles of due process and natural justice, as enshrined under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the constitution,” the affidavit said.