Context:

• The Supreme Court’s (SC) recent order in Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) vs Election Commission of India (2025) regarding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar echoes its landmark judgment in Lal Babu Hussain vs Electoral Registration Officer (1995).
• The issue revolves around citizenship verification, voter exclusion, and the constitutional right to franchise.

Historical Parallel - Lal Babu Hussain Case (1995):

• The Election Commission of India (ECI) attempted to declare certain voters as non-citizens.
• The SC ruled that no person should be asked to prove citizenship without credible evidence against them.
• Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) are required to conduct full inquiries and allow all possible evidence from affected voters.
• Political backlash followed against the ruling Congress party.

Present Issue - Special Intensive Revision (SIR), Bihar:

• Legal basis: The Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1950 and Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 provide for summary revision and intensive revision, but not “Special Intensive Revision”. Hence, SIR lacks explicit statutory backing.
• ECI’s rationale behind SIR: To remove non-citizens from voter rolls.
• Issues involved:
  • ECI relies only on the 2003 electoral roll as a valid base.
  • ECI prescribes a narrow set of documents as proof of identity. Aadhaar cards and Electoral Photo ID Cards (EPIC) are not accepted.
  • The burden of proof shifted to citizens to establish their own citizenship.
• Similar case: Similar exclusions occurred in Delhi and Mumbai (1994), where ration cards were initially not accepted until Bombay HC intervened.

Supreme Court’s 2025 Order:

• Directed ECI to:
  • Make draft electoral rolls accessible and searchable.
  • Provide reasons for voter exclusion.
  • Accept more documents as proof of identity, including Aadhaar and EPIC.
• Significance of the order:
  • Ensures transparency and natural justice.
  • Shifts focus from citizenship verification to accuracy of voter rolls.

SC–ECI Institutional Relationship:

• Generally cooperative: SC has supported ECI reforms like declaration of assets, disqualification of convicted politicians, and NOTA.
• Rare disagreements: Electoral Bonds case (SC struck them down as unconstitutional despite ECI’s indifferent stance).
• Current stance: SC’s order is not a rebuke but a gentle nudge towards transparency.

Democratic Principles at Stake:

• Original electoral rolls (1951): Even the homeless and nameless (particularly women) were included, ensuring universal adult suffrage.
• Contrast: SIR risks exclusionary practices.

Conclusion:

• In the future, the SC’s insistence on transparency and fairness in electoral roll revisions will strengthen citizen-centric democracy and prevent exclusionary practices.
• As India moves towards Viksit Bharat@2047, reforms in voter registration must evolve into a technologically robust, inclusive, and legally accountable system that upholds universal suffrage.