NEW DELHI, Aug. 13 -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday said there appears to be a "trust deficiency" surrounding the Election Commission of India's (ECI) special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, even as it backed the poll body's stand that possession of an Aadhaar card cannot be treated as conclusive proof of citizenship. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said the first question to be settled was whether ECI had the legal authority to carry out the exercise. "If they don't have the power, everything ends. But if they have the power, there cannot be a problem. You will have to then tell us about the process," observed the court, adding that the court would not hesitate to strike down the entire process if it found that ECI lacked such authority or if "gross illegality" was detected even after the final rolls are published. The court is hearing multiple petitions challenging the ECI's June 24 directive ordering an SIR ahead of the upcoming Bihar Assembly polls. Petitioners , which include NGOs, political leaders and activists, have alleged that the process, if left unchecked, could disenfranchise lakhs of legitimate voters and undermine free and fair elections. During the hearing, the court remarked: "This is largely a case of trust deficiency, nothing else." The bench asked ECI to be prepared with detailed facts and figures, including the number of voters before SIR, the tally of voters declared dead earlier and now, and data on inclusions and exclusions. ECI has defended its decision, citing demographic changes, urban migration, and the need to remove inaccuracies from rolls that have not undergone intensive revision for nearly two decades. It maintains that it has plenary powers under Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 to carry out SIR. In its latest affidavit filed on August 9, the Commission stressed that the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 do not require it to prepare or publish a separate list of the nearly 65 lakh persons not included in the draft rolls, or to state the reasons for each non-inclusion. It clarified that exclusion from the draft does not amount to deletion from the electoral roll and assured the court that no name will be removed without prior notice, an opportunity to be heard, and a reasoned order by the competent authority. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for RJD parliamentarian Manoj Jha, alleged that even voters who had participated in multiple past elections were missing from the draft rolls, with some alive voters recorded as dead. He argued that the requirement to re-submit forms, even for those in the 2003 rolls with no change in address, could lead to unjustified exclusions. Appearing for TMC lawmaker Mahua Moitra and some others, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that there is a presumption of citizenship and highlighted the short time period within which the entire process is taking place just ahead of the elections. He further submitted that crores of people cannot be declared invalid on the basis of presumption. Activist and psephologist Yogendra Yadav called SIR "the largest exercise of disenfranchisement in history," claiming the exclusions could cross one crore and disproportionately affect women -- 31 lakh women versus 25 lakh men, according to his figures. He said the process had resulted in "zero additions" to the rolls, turning it into "an exercise in intensive deletion." Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), questioned why the draft roll, searchable online until August 4, was later made non-searchable. He also alleged that Block Level Officers had rejected 10-12% of applications without recorded reasons. During the hering, the bench did not agree with the assertion that most people in Bihar lacked the documents required for verification, pointing to the availability of family registers, pension cards and other papers. On Aadhaar, the court observed: "ECI is correct in saying Aadhaar can't be accepted as conclusive proof of citizenship; it has to be verified. See Section 9 of the Aadhaar Act." This provision states that Aadhaar is only proof of identity, and not of citizenship. While acknowledging that errors were inevitable in such a large-scale exercise, senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing ECI, said these could be corrected before the final roll is published on September 30. He noted that around 6.5 crore people did not need to submit documents because they or their parents were in the 2003 rolls. The court will continue hearing the matter on Wednesday. The petitions by ADR and others challenge the ECI's June 24 notification initiating SIR under Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. The petitioners argue that the ECI's demand for only 11 specified documents, such as birth or matriculation certificates, passport, domicile certificate, etc, as proof of citizenship lacks statutory basis. They further claim that this restrictive documentation requirement could disenfranchise a large number of legitimate voters, especially those from marginalised communities. They have also questioned whether ECI is empowered to conduct such a revision for verifying citizenship, arguing that this function rests with the Union government. SIR has become a major political flashpoint ahead of the Bihar assembly elections scheduled for later this year. Opposition parties in the INDIA bloc have staged protests in Parliament and written to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla seeking a special discussion on what they call an "unprecedented" revision so close to state polls. Eight parties, including Congress, RJD, Samajwadi Party, DMK, Trinamool Congress and Shiv Sena (UBT), have warned that the exercise could be replicated nationwide. On August 8, Union home minister Amit Shah, addressing a rally in Bihar's Sitamarhi, launched a sharp attack on Opposition leader Rahul Gandhi and the INDIA bloc, accusing them of opposing the revision because "names of infiltrators" were being removed from the lists. "Infiltrators have no right to vote. Names of infiltrators must be removed from the voters' lists. But the Rashtriya Janata Dal and the Congress are opposing SIR in Bihar because the names of infiltrators are being deleted," Shah said. While the government has accused the Opposition of politicising electoral reforms, the Opposition contends that the SIR's timing, methodology and documentation requirements threaten the fundamental right to vote of genuine electors, particularly among the poor, migrants, and minorities. During an earlier hearing on July 10, a different bench of the apex court had framed three key legal questions for examination: Whether ECI has the authority to undertake a special revision exercise like the SIR; whether the manner in which the SIR is being conducted is legally valid; and whether the timing of the exercise, months ahead of the Bihar Assembly elections, is appropriate. The court had at the time noted that the issues "go to the root of the functioning of a democratic republic" and involve the citizens' fundamental right to vote. On July 28, the top court had refused to stay the publication of the draft rolls but reminded ECI that the SIR must promote inclusion, not mass exclusion....