The Supreme Court has directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to submit a response by Saturday regarding allegations that over 65 lakh names were removed from Bihar’s draft electoral roll following a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise.
The order came during a hearing on a plea filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), which raised concerns over transparency and procedural lapses in the revision process.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan, and NK Singh heard the arguments presented by Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing ADR. Bhushan questioned the deletion of such a massive number of voters and claimed that the ECI failed to disclose the identities of the omitted individuals or clarify whether they were deceased or had migrated.
“We have filed an IA… the draft roll they have published says 65 lakh voters’ names have been omitted… they have not given a list of those names,” Bhushan told the bench. “They have said people are dead, have migrated… they should disclose who are the 65 lakhs, who are dead, who have migrated.”
Bhushan further alleged that political parties were not given access to the draft list at the block level, violating the standard procedure. He pointed to inconsistencies in how Booth Level Officers (BLOs) were involved in the revision process.
“The BLOs, when forwarding the forms, have said whether a person is or isn’t recommended by them. But for the rest of the voters, that is, for the 8 crore minus 65 lakh, they have not published whether BLOs have recommended or not. This information will be very important,” he argued.
The court was also told that even among those newly added to the list, most did not submit the necessary documentation, and in many instances, BLOs had themselves filled out forms without proper verification. “In two constituencies alone, around 12% of inclusions have not been recommended,” Bhushan added.
In response, the ECI’s counsel refuted the allegations, asserting that the draft roll had been shared with political parties before publication and that the required procedures were followed. “We are only obligated to make the draft roll publicly available… and we can show that it was shared with party representatives,” the ECI’s lawyer argued.
Justice Surya Kant, however, emphasised that the ECI should clarify its stance in writing. “Why can’t you say all this in a reply? If you have supplied the list, please provide the names of the political parties it was shared with so that Mr. Bhushan’s client can collect the necessary information from those authorised representatives,” he said.
The Court directed the ECI to file a comprehensive reply covering not just the sharing of the draft roll with political parties but also its dissemination at the local level. “We will ensure that every voter who is likely to be affected gets the requisite information and that all necessary documents are duly considered,” Justice Kant said.
The matter is scheduled for a detailed hearing on August 12, when the Court will take up petitions challenging the legitimacy of the Bihar Special Intensive Revision process.
The issue comes ahead of the Bihar Assembly elections later this year, with the ECI implementing a special voter list revision. Under this revision, individuals whose names do not appear in the 2003 electoral roll are required to furnish additional proof of eligibility. A clause in the directive—Clause 5(b)—has stirred controversy as it allows officials to flag “suspected” voters for citizenship verification, raising concerns of a potential “backdoor NRC.”
The move has triggered fears of disenfranchisement, particularly among Dalits, OBCs, migrant workers, and Muslims, with critics warning it could undermine democratic participation. The Supreme Court had earlier remarked it would intervene if there was evidence of mass exclusion.