In a high-stakes showdown at the Supreme Court, Bihar’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process came under fire for its aggressive citizenship verification of enrolled voters. Petitioners have decried it as discriminatory, prompting a detailed judicial examination that exposed cracks in the Election Commission’s defense.
The EC, through counsel Rakesh Dwivedi, leaned on historical precedent, pointing to the unchallenged 2003 amendments to the Citizenship Act, which enjoyed cross-party support. The court countered: did those tweaks alone justify embedding citizenship probes into routine voter list revisions? Dwivedi stressed SIR’s constitutional mandate under Article 326 to safeguard voting rights for citizens only.
A pivotal flashpoint emerged around the SIR order’s reference to ‘migration.’ Justices sought clarity: does it target only unlawful border crossings? The response included all forms of migration, from one state to another or within Bihar itself. This drew a stern rebuke. The Constitution guarantees free movement across India; equating internal migration with illegality defies basic rights, the bench asserted.
Drawing parallels to American jurisprudence, challengers accused SIR of flouting due process. Dwivedi parried with irony, highlighting U.S. hypocrisies like Trump’s calls to extradite foreign leaders or claim territories, undermining their lectures on procedural fairness.
Wrapping up the session on January 22, the Supreme Court held its judgment in abeyance, with proceedings resuming January 28. For Bihar’s electorate, the outcome could redefine voter eligibility, affecting lakhs and setting precedents for nationwide electoral reforms.