The Supreme Court delivered a stern warning on Monday regarding Bihar's contentious Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, stating it would completely nullify the entire exercise if any procedural violations are discovered in the Election Commission of India's methodology.

Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, presiding over the case challenging the voter registration survey, indicated they were operating under the assumption that the Election Commission, as a constitutional body, had adhered to all legal requirements and mandatory procedures during the SIR implementation.

The apex court declined to provide any interim or partial judgment on the matter, emphasizing that its ultimate decision would establish nationwide precedent for similar Special Intensive Revision exercises across India. The bench scheduled October 7 as the date for hearing concluding arguments regarding the legitimacy of Bihar's SIR process.

In a significant development on September 8, the Supreme Court mandated that Aadhaar cards be recognized as the twelfth acceptable document for voter registration during Bihar's ongoing electoral roll revision. This directive followed numerous complaints alleging that election officials were rejecting Aadhaar submissions despite previous court instructions to accept them.

The court dismissed the Election Commission's reservations about Aadhaar acceptance, clarifying that while the unique identification system cannot establish citizenship status, it serves as valid proof of both identity and residential address for voter registration purposes.

The Special Intensive Revision initiative has faced intense criticism from opposition political parties, who contend that millions of legitimate voters are being removed from electoral rolls without adequate verification procedures. Critics argue that excluding Aadhaar from the Election Commission's original list of eleven approved documents creates unfair barriers for voters, particularly since Aadhaar cards are more commonly possessed than alternative identification documents.

According to data released by the Election Commission on August 18, approximately 6.5 million names were eliminated from voter rolls as part of the SIR exercise, raising concerns about the scope and accuracy of the deletion process.

The Election Commission has responded forcefully to opposition allegations, rejecting claims of "vote chori" (vote theft) and accusing political parties of deliberately misleading voters while attempting to shift responsibility onto the electoral authority. The commission maintains that its procedures follow established legal frameworks and constitutional requirements.

Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar escalated the confrontation by demanding that Congress leader and Lok Sabha Opposition leader Rahul Gandhi either submit a sworn affidavit providing evidence to support his allegations against the poll panel or issue a public apology for his accusations.

The controversy surrounding Bihar's electoral roll revision reflects broader tensions about voter registration processes and concerns over potential disenfranchisement. The Supreme Court's intervention highlights the delicate balance between ensuring electoral integrity and protecting legitimate voting rights.

The upcoming October hearing is expected to provide definitive clarity on the constitutional validity of the SIR methodology, with implications extending beyond Bihar to influence electoral roll revision practice