Is the Supreme Court’s ‘interim order’ on the SIR too vague for comfort?

The two-and-a half-day hearing in the Supreme Court of 12–14 August 2025 led to an interim order on the special intensive revision (SIR) being conducted by the Election Commission of India on 14 August, Thursday.

The short and carefully worded order states that it was ‘agreed’ that the ECI would display the list of 65.2 lakh voters deleted from the electoral roll after the month-long SIR that concluded on 25 July. Not an ‘instruction’ or ‘order’ from the Supreme Court to the ECI, but a mild enough agreement' between the two.

Surprisingly, the ECI had earlier categorically refused to release the list. It had argued that no rule requires it to release the list of the deceased and those who permanently shifted or those who are registered in more than one booth. It then argued in court that releasing such a list would affect the privacy of the voters.

It thereafter claimed that the list had already been shared with booth-level agents (BLAs) of political parties.

Then, for 45 minutes in the court on 14 August, the ECI’s counsel vehemently argued against releasing the list before ‘agreeing’ to the court’s suggestion.

Remarkably, it had earlier brushed aside the court’s suggestion that it should include Aadhaar as the 12^th document, in addition to the 11 documents it had specified for voters to establish that they are citizens. In its counter affidavit too, it had refused to accept Aadhaar as proof of citizenship, pointing out that Aadhaar was not conceived as proof of citizenship but merely as proof of residence.

There is ambiguity even after the Supreme Court’s interim order as to whether the Election Commission has indeed ‘agreed’ to add Aadhaar as the 12^th document. Lawyers on the petitioners’ side believe the Supreme Court order specifically mentions Aadhaar, while sceptics have argued that the order merely says that the aggrieved ‘may submit their claims along with a copy of their Aadhaar’.

While we wait for more clarity on the issues, it is worth looking at the interim order of the court and see what it says and, more importantly, what it does not say.  

What the Supreme Court’s interim order on the SIR specifically states:

It has been agreed that the Election Commission of India, as an interim measure, will take the following steps:

1. The list of (approximately) 65,00,000 voters whose names appeared in the voter list as on (01 January) 2025 but are not included in the draft rolls dated 1 August 2025 shall be displayed on the websites of the district election officers (district-wise). The information will be sorted booth-wise, but each individual entry will be accessible by the Electors Photo Identity Card (EPIC) number of each voter.

2. The list so displayed shall also disclose the reason for non-inclusion in the draft rolls.

3. The chief electoral officer (CEO) of Bihar will also get the soft copies of the district-wise lists of the voters who have not been included in the draft rolls, along with the reasons for their non-inclusion, displayed on their website.

4. It is clarified that the lists so displayed on all websites shall be searchable by EPIC number.

5. In addition, the booth-wise lists of the (approximately) 65,00,000 voters whose names have not been included in the draft rolls shall also be displayed on the notice board of respective panchayat bhavans and offices of the block development officer/panchayat officers to enable the general public to have access to the aforesaid voters lists, along with the reasons for the non-inclusion of their names.

6. With a view to informing the people about online availability of the abovementioned lists on the websites of the district election officer and the display of such lists at the panchayat bhavans and the offices of the block development/panchayat officers, extensive publicity shall be given in daily newspapers in the regional languages as well as English newspapers having wide circulation in the state of Bihar. In addition, it shall also be broadcast and telecast through radio and on electronic media.

7. If the district election officers and chief electoral officer of Bihar have any official social media accounts, the public notice is also to be displayed on those profiles.

8. In the public notice, it shall be expressly mentioned that any aggrieved persons may submit their claims along with a copy of their Aadhaar card.

9. The Election Commission of India shall obtain a compliance report from all booth-level officers and district election officers and place it on record as a collated status report.

What the SC’s interim order on 14 August, 2025 does not specify:

1. Contrary to claims, the order uploaded on the court’s website does not specifically lay down a 48-hour/three-day/‘on or before 19 August’ deadline for the lists to be uploaded. It is conjecture that because of the long weekend and intervening holidays, the lists may not be uploaded before 19 August — or at least not until the next hearing on 22 August.

2. Significantly, while the order states that aggrieved persons mistakenly left out of the list can submit their claims along with a copy of their Aadhaar card, it does not specifically order the Election Commission to accept the document as proof of their identity, address or citizenship.

3. The order does not specifically say that aggrieved voters who present their Aadhaar card/number will have to be re-enrolled by the Election Commission. At best, this is an inference being drawn following arguments in the court and based on the observations of the justices.

4. The order does not say that citizens left out of the draft list following the SIR will automatically regain their place in the roll and regain their voting rights after submitting the required documentation. This is because the Election Commission is on record as having stated that the only remedial measure is for the left-out voters to apply and register as first-time voters by filling up Form 6.