Top Court Tells Election Commission That Aadhaar Is Valid For Voter Roll Revision

The Supreme Court ruled Friday afternoon that voters in Bihar who are contesting their exclusion from the electoral roll before the election later this year can use their Aadhaar as proof of residency. The court also ordered the Election Commission to include the government-issued ID on a list of 11 additional documents.

The court estimated that there were about 35 lakh excluded votes after subtracting the number of people who were allegedly deceased and duplicate entries, but they were instructed to act quickly. Justice Surya Kant ordered that all paperwork be filed by September 1. However, a bench that included Justice Joymalya Bagchi stated that this may be done online.

Applications for re-inclusion can be filed using either of those 11 or the Aadhaar, according to the top court, which is considering petitions challenging the “special intensive revision” of the voter list. The court also made some scathing remarks about Bihar’s political parties, asking them to explain why they hadn’t helped lakhs of people who were attempting to reapply for the list. Many of these parties had resisted the modification, arguing that it was “designed to disenfranchise” groups that often vote for them.

“Political parties are not doing their jobs…” the court said, echoing the poll panel’s note that objections had filed been by individual politicians, i.e., MPs and MLAs, but not the parties.

“We are surprised at what political parties are doing in Bihar. What are your BLAs (booth-level agents) doing? Political parties must help voters,” the court said after being told that only two objections – to exclusions of voters – had come from over 1.6 lakh BLAs from parties.

There was a note that some poll officials were not acknowledging BLAs’ objections. To counter this, the court said acknowledgment receipts had to be offered when forms are submitted.

“This problem is beyond 65 lakh people,” Advocate Vrinda Grover, appearing for one of the petitioners, said. “But we are only surprised by the inaction of parties. After appointing BLAs, what have they been doing?” the court replied, “Why there is a distance to the people?”

The EC then pointed out that BLAs were allowed to submit ten enumeration forms each day, i.e., on behalf of voters who had been struck off, and that individual voters had objected to the removal of their names more frequently than political parties that had protested the revision process.

Additionally, the EC pointed out that no political party had filed written objections.

“Voters are more conscious than political parties!” the court remarked, as it sought the names of parties in this case and impleaded them, and then posted the hearing next for September 8.

Earlier senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the poll panel, urged the court to give the Election Commission of India a 15-day window to show there had been no wrongful exclusion.

“Political parties are making hue and cry… things are not bad,” he said, “Repose faith in the Election Commission and give us more time. We will be show you there are no exclusions.”

The election board also informed the court that over two lakh new voters had registered their identities and that about 85,000 voters who had been left off of the draft rolls had applied to be added back.