The ECI had said that Aadhaar and ration cards can be obtained through fraudulent or falsified documentation. ADR argued that other 11 documents accepted by the ECI are equally susceptible to being forged.

The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) has told the Supreme Court that the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar risks the disenfranchisement of lakhs of voters, and lacks transparency and procedural safeguards.

In a rejoinder to the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) counter-affidavit, ADR has criticised the exclusion of Aadhaar and ration cards from the list of acceptable documents for voter verification.

“The fact that Aadhar card is one of the documents accepted for obtaining Permanent Residence Certificate, OBC/SC/ST Certificate and for passport – makes ECI’s rejection of Aadhar (which is most widely held document) under the instant SIR order patently absurd,” ADR said, as reported by Bar and Bench.

The ECI had said that Aadhaar and ration cards can be obtained through fraudulent or falsified documentation. ADR argued that other 11 documents accepted by the ECI are equally susceptible to being forged, and Aadhaar is routinely accepted for issuing government certificates and passports.

According to Bar and Bench, the ECI has given no valid reason to exclude Aadhaar and ration cards from the list of acceptable documents in the ongoing SIR of electoral rolls in Bihar.

The NGO alleged that the SIR process grants broad, unchecked discretion to Electoral Registration Officers (EROs), who are tasked with examining enumeration forms for over 3 lakh voters each.

This scale, it said, makes due diligence humanly impossible, and could lead to arbitrary deletions from the electoral rolls. The rejoinder cited media reports and findings by journalist Ajit Anjum indicating that Booth Level Officers (BLOs) are mass-uploading enumeration forms without the knowledge or consent of voters, Live Law reported.

Forms have allegedly been submitted online in the names of electors who never met a BLO or signed any documents, and even of deceased individuals.

ADR said voters have received acknowledgement receipts on their phones despite never submitting forms. “The integrity of the electoral rolls is compromised, potentially affecting millions of voters and undermining the democratic process,” it said in the rejoinder.

ADR further argued that the process lacks a clear mechanism for verification and fails to give adequate time for affected voters to appeal exclusions.

The ECI has said that electors who have not submitted enumeration forms along with supporting documents and whose names are not in the draft rolls, to be published on August 1, stand to be deleted from the roll unless they file a claim for inclusion.

Once a claim for inclusion is filed, if the ERO has any doubt as to the eligibility of any elector, a suo moto inquiry can be started, issuing a notice as to why the name of the elector should not be deleted.

Against the decision of the ERO, an appeal can be filed before the District Magistrate under Section 24(a) or Section 24(b) (second appeal) before the CEO under the Representation of the People Act, 1950.

Responding to the ECI’s claim that the SIR is needed due to large-scale migration, ADR countered that electoral roll updates have always been a continuous process. It added that the tight timeline for Bihar’s October–November Assembly elections and the deadline of three months to complete the SIR place “a large number of voters at huge risk of disenfranchisement,” particularly those lacking proper documents.

The NGO also disputed the ECI’s claims that political parties demanded a new revision. Their actual concerns, ADR said, were about the issue of addition of non-existent voters, deletion of genuine voters supporting the opposition parties and on the issue of casting of votes after closure of polls.

ADR has also contended ECI's claim on determination of citizenship of a person under Article 326 of the Constitution. The NGO said that during a similar exercise in Assam, the poll body had made it clear that it was not for EROs to determine whether a particular person was a citizen or not.

"The stand taken by the Election Commission is also contrary to the judgment of a Constitution Bench of this Hon’ble Court in Inderjit Barua v. Election Commission of India, (1985) 1 SCC 21, wherein it was expressly held that presence on the existing electoral roll was prima facie proof of citizenship," it said in the rejoinder, reported by LiveLaw.

Further, the ADR said, the SIR process shifts the onus of citizenship proof on all existing electors in a state, whose names were registered by the ECI through a due process.

"The said stand taken by ECI is contrary to this Hon’ble Court’s judgment in Lal Babu Hussain (1995) 3 SCC 100 where it was held that 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," the ADR said, quoted by Bar and Bench.

The matter is scheduled to be heard by a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi on July 28. The ADR’s rejoinder was drawn by Advocates Neha Rathi and Kajal Giri, and filed through Advocate Prashant Bhushan.