The Supreme Court of India dissected the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Bihar, a voter list overhaul scrutinizing citizens’ eligibility through citizenship checks. Triggered by petitions, the hearing revealed sharp divides on its legality and scope.
EC lawyer Rakesh Dwivedi opened with the 2003 Citizenship Act overhaul, unopposed and backed universally. Justices pressed: was this the trigger for SIR’s citizenship focus? He affirmed its roots in Article 326, aimed at pure voter rolls comprising only Indians.
Debate ignited over ‘migration’ in official orders. Targeted at illegal entries, or broader? EC included interstate and local shifts. The court pounced: constitutional Article 19(1)(g) enshrines movement rights; deeming domestic migration dubious is untenable.
Opponents cited U.S. due process rulings to decry SIR’s procedural flaws. Dwivedi retorted with pointed examples—Trump’s Venezuela intervention threats and Greenland ambitions—exposing American double standards on justice.
On January 22, after exhaustive submissions, the bench reserved orders, scheduling the sequel for January 28. Bihar watches anxiously; SIR’s fate could disenfranchise or empower millions, influencing India’s democratic fabric profoundly.