Association of Democratic Reforms (ADR) has told the Supreme Court that the Election Commission of India (ECI) has given no valid reason to exclude Aadhaar and ration cards from the list of acceptable documents in the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar.

The organisation made the submission in a rejoinder to the reply filed by the ECI opposing the petitions challenging the SIR in Bihar ahead of the upcoming Assembly elections. The poll body had said that Aadhaar and ration cards can be obtained through fraudulent or falsified documentation. 

In the rejoinder, the NGO has said the 11 documents included in the approved list are equally susceptible to being procured on the basis of fake or false documentation.

"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," it added. 

ADR has also alleged that the SIR lacks any defined procedure for the examination of enumeration forms or the verification of supporting documents.

It says that Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) are vested with broad and unchecked discretion that could result in disenfranchisement of a significant segment of Bihar’s population. In particular, it has highlighted that a single ERO is tasked with handling the enumeration forms of over 3 lakh individuals. The reply also cited media reports claiming that enumeration forms are being filled in the absence of voters.

"This lack of defined procedure enables EROs to act arbitrarily and to exercise their discretion in a manner that is susceptible to misuse and undermines the integrity of the electoral process and democracy which is a fundamental right," the rejoinder states.

It has further said that the affected voters would not get sufficient time to have their appeals adjudicated in time.

On the ECI's explanation that the SIR was necessary due to migration of voters, ADR has said that the process of updating the electoral list all over the country has been a continuous process. With regard to Bihar, it said that the deadline of three months to complete the SIR put a lot of eligible voters under "huge risk of disenfranchisement."

"The exclusion of voters, as pointed out by the petitioners is currently playing out on the ground, with many electors without documents in no position to provide the same. With elections stated to be held in October-November 2025, there is no time for a large number of voters -- both who do not have documents but have submitted form and whose names do not find a mention in draft roll to get themselves included in the rolls. Moreover, the impact of deletion of migrated electors can be substantial if they are clustered within a few constituencies and demographics."

It also rejected the ECI’s claim that political parties had demanded a new revision. The concerns of political parties were on 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, it said.

ADR has also challenged ECI's submission on determination of citizenship of a person under Article 326 of the Constitution, stating 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," the rejoinder states.

It has alleged further that 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 has argued.

The top court is currently hearing a batch of petitions challenging ECI’s SIR notification, on the ground that it violates Articles 14, 19, 21, 325 and 326 of the Constitution and departs from procedures prescribed under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.

ADR in its plea has argued that SIR can arbitrarily and without due process disenfranchise lakhs of citizens from electing their representatives, thereby disrupting free and fair elections and democracy in the country.

On the other hand, the ECI has defended its June 24, 2025 directive, asserting that it has plenary powers under Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 to conduct a Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.

It told the Court that the exercise was necessitated by factors such as urban migration, demographic changes and concerns raised about inaccuracies in the existing rolls, which had not undergone an intensive revision for nearly two decades.

The poll body has said that the SIR was essential to ensure that only eligible citizens are included on the rolls ahead of the Bihar Assembly elections later this year.