New Delhi: During the hearing of petitions concerning the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, the Supreme Court dismissed the contention that the Election Commission’s document verification drive was “anti-voter” and exclusionary.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi presented arguments before a Bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi. He contended that the current process was exclusionary in nature, particularly for vulnerable populations in Bihar. However, the Bench observed that the number of documents acceptable as proof of citizenship had increased from seven during the previous summary revision to 11 under the SIR.

Justice Bagchi remarked, “We get your exclusionary argument from Aadhaar. But the point on the number of documents is, in fact, voter-friendly and not against it. Look at the number of documents by which you can prove citizenship.”

Justice Kant concurred, stating, “If they ask for all 11 documents, it is anti-voter. But if any one document is asked for, then…”

Singhvi, however, maintained that the process remains exclusionary. “I will show how. An exclusionary test is sought here. See what is asked for… if you don’t have land… options 5, 6, 7 are out. Options 1 and 2 do not exist. Residence certificates are not there. Passport is illusory,” he argued.

At this point, Justice Kant interjected, saying, “Let us not project Bihar this way. In terms of the All India Services, maximum representation is from this state. The maximum IAS, IPS, and IFS officers are from there. This cannot happen if the younger population is not motivated.”

Singhvi responded, “We have very talented scientists, etc., from there, but this is limited to a section of people. Bihar has rural, flood-prone areas. There are poverty-stricken areas. What is the point of making a list of 11 documents for them? The issue is that most people in Bihar will not have these documents. We are talking about real, authentic scrutiny.”

Referring to passports, Singhvi pointed out that only 1–2 per cent of Bihar’s population held passports, amounting to about 36 lakh people. The Bench responded that a coverage of 36 lakh passports was “good”.

Singhvi pressed on, saying, “You have given 11 documents, and three of these 11 documents, the three boxes are empty without notice. The other two are doubtful. So this impressive list of 11 is nothing but a house of cards. It is not overlapping but supplantation.”

He also cited the 1995 Lal Babu Hussein judgement, which upheld the rights of voters and stated that names could not be deleted from the electoral roll without sufficient evidence and without giving the individual an opportunity to be heard. Singhvi argued that the current exercise violated these principles by putting the burden of proving citizenship on the voter.