New Delhi, July 11 -- The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Election Commission of India (ECI) to also consider Aadhaar cards, voter IDs and ration cards in its ongoing special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, even as it agreed to examine whether the poll body's exercise violated legal provisions or could potentially lead to mass disenfranchisement ahead of assembly elections due later this year. Underlining that the matter "goes to the root of the functioning of the democratic republic" and involves "the right to vote," a bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi said it would examine three key questions -- ECI's powers to conduct such an exercise, the manner in which the SIR is being conducted, and its timing, and fixed the matter for next hearing on July 28. The court also directed the poll body to file its counter affidavit within a week and noted that no interim order was being passed at this stage since, by the ECI's own schedule, the draft electoral rolls were to be published on August 1. "We are of the prima facie view that it will be in the interest of justice if the ECI also considers Aadhaar, voter ID cards, and ration cards among the acceptable documents for enumeration," the bench said. It also observed that the draft rolls should not be finalised until then, a direction that came after the court expressed serious doubt whether the massive state-wide exercise could be completed within the ECI's strict timeline. The court engaged in an intense exchange with ECI counsel and senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, apart from senior lawyers Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Shadan Farasat, appearing for Opposition leaders and NGOs that have challenged SIR. The petitioners contend that the revision exercise is arbitrary, has no legal backing, and is being conducted at a time and in a manner that may result in large-scale disenfranchisement. During the day-long hearing, the bench grilled ECI over the proximity of the exercise to the Bihar assembly elections and the potential for disenfranchisement. "You are conducting this exercise which has the propensity to disenfranchise several people.Why not delink this exercise from the upcoming election?" remarked the court, pointing out that voters who have participated in multiple elections over the years may now face exclusion due to lack of documentation. "Why are you making this exercise relatable to the election to be conducted in November? Why can't this be carried out independent of the upcoming polls?" asked the bench, expressing concern that voters who had participated in the last 20 years of elections may now find themselves ousted for want of documents. "Isn't it too late to do this ahead of elections?" it asked ECI. The court also flagged the strict 30-day deadlines given for each stage of the three-phase process and wondered whether the ECI could realistically conduct a house-to-house survey and hearings under such a compressed timeline. "We have serious doubts whether you will be able to complete the entire exercise within your deadline," it remarked. At one point, the court even suggested delinking the current exercise from the 2025 elections. "Why don't you go ahead with the exercise but do not use this for the upcoming election in the state?" the court asked Dwivedi. Referring to the ECI's refusal to consider Aadhaar or older voter ID cards as valid enumeration documents, the court remarked: "We feel, in view of the proviso to Section 23(4) of the RP Act, how can Aadhaar be not considered?" It noted that Aadhaar has been recognised under the Aadhaar Act (post-2022 amendment) as well as under the RP Act a relevant identity document and advised ECI to include Aadhaar, voter cards and ration cards in the acceptable list. Appearing for ECI, senior Dwivedi argued that the power to revise electoral rolls flows from Article 324 and pertinent provisions of the Representation of the People (RP) Act. "If ECI cannot do it, who can? We are conscious of our role. We are creating an ECI Net with digitised data that will stay for years," he said, assuring the court that no voter will be excluded without proper notice and opportunity for hearing. However, the court questioned whether the ECI would be able to conduct oral hearings at scale, as mandated under Section 21A of RP Act. "You have to go from household to household. Can you really finish this within six months?" it asked, noting that the law mandates fair opportunity before deletion. While acknowledging that Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act gives the ECI wide powers to conduct an intensive revision, the court probed the timing and the manner of the exercise. A key bone of contention was the exclusion of Aadhaar and voter cards from the list of acceptable documents in the current enumeration forms. Petitioners said this placed an unfair burden on marginalised communities, migrants and the poor, many of whom participated in the past elections but lacked additional documentation now being demanded. Sankaranarayanan, for ADR, argued that even voters who were part of the 2003 electoral roll had been asked to fill out fresh forms or risk being struck off. "They have removed a whole set of documents from the enumeration forms, including Aadhaar and even previous voter IDs," he submitted. Singhvi, appearing for TMC MP Mahua Moitra, said the exercise should be postponed to after the 2025 elections to avoid disenfranchisement. "Disenfranchisement of crores of people will happen. Let the ECI do this after the elections - it will only solidify their credibility," he said. Sibal, representing Congress leader KC Venugopal, added that the burden to prove citizenship was wrongly placed on the voter. "Bihar's own caste census found that many marginalised people do not have the documents now required. Why are they being excluded?" he asked. Responding, Dwivedi said the last intensive revision was in 2003 and much had changed since then, including computerisation. He said the petitioners were "outsiders" who were not voters in Bihar and were trying to "put a spoke" in a legally mandated process. He assured the court that no voter would be excluded without notice and hearing....