This report critically examines the Supreme Court’s inaction on the Bihar Voter List 2025 revision, where over 1.67 crore voters face potential disenfranchisement. Applying the Doctrine of Constitutional Inaction, it argues that judicial silence in such high-stakes cases constitutes a constitutional failure, undermining both the right to vote and democratic accountability.
New Delhi (ABC Live): On July 1o, 2025, a Bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi heard a series of petitions challenging the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Bihar’s electoral rolls. The stakes are clear: more than 1.67 crore voters—a significant portion of Bihar’s 7.2 crore electorate—are at risk of losing their right to vote just months before the state elections.
Despite four hours of detailed arguments from both sides, the Court refrained from passing any clear judicial directive. Instead, it issued non-binding observations and postponed further hearing to July 28—just days before the draft rolls were originally scheduled for publication.
This report applies the Doctrine of Constitutional Inaction to assess how judicial silence at this critical juncture endangers democratic rights and contributes to the erosion of constitutional accountability. The issue of the Bihar Voter List 2025 stands at the center of this crisis.
II. The Constitutional Stakes and Legal Issues
A. Key Legal Challenges
- Statutory Legitimacy of SIR: The Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 only recognize two categories of revision: summary and intensive. Petitioners argued that the SIR constitutes a third, statutorily unsupported category.
- Reversal of Burden: The SIR requires all voters, particularly those enrolled post-2003, to reconfirm their eligibility, thereby reversing the legal presumption in favor of enrolled voters.
- Documentary Exclusion: Widely held identity documents—Aadhaar, Voter ID, Ration Card—were excluded from the accepted list, disproportionately affecting vulnerable groups.
- Compressed Timeline: The 30-day window for re-verification is unreasonably short, particularly considering Bihar’s large and migrant-heavy population.
- Deadline Update: The ECI has recently extended the deadline for document submission to September 1, 2025, as part of its outreach to ensure wider inclusion in the Bihar Voter List 2025.
III. Data Analysis: Voter Impact and Administrative Burden
A. Voter Vulnerability Snapshot
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Total Registered Voters in Bihar | 7.2 crore |
| Voters Affected by SIR | ~1.67 crore |
| Migrant Workers (Bihar) | ~1 crore |
| Aadhaar Coverage | 87.2% |
| Rural Households Below Rs. 5000/Month | 74% |
B. Document Ownership Trends
| Document | Estimated Ownership | Included in SIR? |
| Aadhaar | 87% | No |
| Voter ID | >95% | No |
| Ration Card | ~78% | No |
| Property Documents | <15% | Yes |
| Birth Certificate | ~29% | Yes |
IV. Applying the Doctrine of Constitutional Inaction
The Doctrine of Constitutional Inaction defines a failure to act where constitutional duty exists as a justiciable wrong. This case meets all four tests:
| Test | Observation |
| Duty | Supreme Court under Article 32 is obliged to protect voting rights. |
| Proximity | 1.67 crore voters face imminent disenfranchisement. |
| Avoidability | The Court had the facts, time, and precedent (Lal Babu Hussein v. ERO) to act. |
| Remedy | Relief could include interim stay, document inclusion, or clear procedural direction. |
V. Consequences of Judicial Silence
1. Empowering Executive Overreach
Silence allows executive discretion to go unchecked, weakening judicial review.
2. Denial of Timely Justice
For elections, delay is denial. A verdict after the draft roll is finalized may be moot.
3. Erosion of Trust and Rule of Law
Citizens lose faith in the courts as guardians of rights.
4. Precedent for Future Inaction
Non-intervention becomes normalized in future crises.
VI. Conclusion: The Urgency of Judicial Voice
The Court acknowledged that the matter goes “to the root of the democratic process.” Yet its inaction has allowed ambiguity, confusion, and potential disenfranchisement to fester.
Democracy requires timely protection of rights. The silence of constitutional courts in such high-stakes situations is not a neutral stance—it is a failure of duty, a denial of justice, and a quiet collapse of constitutional accountability.
The right to vote is too precious to be left to bureaucratic discretion. It demands judicial clarity, not caution. Constitutional silence, in this case, is not peace—it is democratic erosion.
Also, Read
Self-Tortfeasor Doctrine Vs. Equity in MV Act Compensation
