On August 6, 2025, the Supreme Court directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to provide a response by Saturday (August 9) regarding allegations of irregularities in Bihar’s draft electoral rolls. The central issue revolves around the deletion of 65 lakh voters from the draft roll, which was published on August 1 after the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process. Through this, the Court is now seeking clarification on two key points one, whether the draft list was shared with political parties before its publication and two, the specific details regarding the names and reasons for the omissions.
Allegations of irregularities and opaque process
The case was brought to the Court’s attention through an application filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR). According to Live Law, ADR’s counsel, Prashant Bhushan, contended that the ECI had not disclosed the identities of the 65 lakh voters whose names were removed. He further alleged that the ECI failed to specify whether these voters were deceased or had migrated, a crucial detail for ensuring the integrity of the electoral roll.
Bhushan also raised concerns about the process itself, stating that political parties were not given the lists at the block level, a step he claimed was essential for transparency. He also highlighted a lack of clarity on whether the inclusions and omissions in the list were based on the recommendations of the Booth Level Officers (BLOs).
Appearing before a bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan, and NK Singh, advocate Prashant Bhushan stated that “We have filed an IA…the draft roll they have published says 65 lakh voters’ names have been omitted…they have not given list of those names…they have said people are dead, have migrated…they should disclose who are the 65 lakhs, who are dead, who have migrated…secondly, the BLOs when forwarding the forms have said this person is/is not recommended by BLO…they have not published for rest of the people that means out of 8 crores minus 65 lakhs, whether BLOs have recommended or not recommended…this information will be very important. IA may be listed tomorrow or day after” as reported by Live Law.
Bhushan also claimed that a significant number of voters were included in the list even though they were not recommended by the BLOs. He argued that these voters had failed to submit the required 11 documents, and in many cases, BLOs themselves had filled out the forms without any supporting documentation.
“Even those who have been included, BLOs have not recommended. Vast majority, more than 75%, have not submitted these 11 documents. BLOs have themselves filled up the forms and there are no documents in any of them. Among those, they are now saying BLOs have not recommended. About 12% in 2 constituencies have not been recommended,” Bhushan said, as reported by Live Law.
ECI’s defence and the Court’s directive
In response, the counsel for the ECI refuted Bhushan’s claims, stating that the submissions were “incorrect.” He asserted that the draft list was indeed shared with representatives of political parties before its publication. When asked by the bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan, and NK Singh, why the ECI couldn’t put this information in a formal reply, the counsel was directed to do so.
“Why can’t you say all this in a reply? If you have supplied, please give a list of political parties to whom you have supplied, so that Mr Bhushan’s client can collect information from those authorized representatives. File your reply by Saturday,” Justice Kant said
Justice Kant also pointed out that since this was only a preliminary list, the reasons for the deletions would be provided later, along with the final list. He also emphasised the importance of ensuring that every affected voter’s information is duly considered. The Court has scheduled the next hearing on the petitions challenging the Bihar SIR for August 12.
Background of the Bihar SIR process and SC hearings
The SIR in Bihar is an exercise undertaken by the ECI for updation in electoral rolls. On June 24, the ECI announced the SIR for Bihar ahead of the state’s assembly elections. This process required voters, particularly those whose names weren’t on the 2003 electoral roll, to re-verify their details by submitting new enumeration forms with supporting documents. The ECI cited the need to remove duplicate entries, deceased voters, and migrated individuals from the rolls.
The legality and methodology of this exercise were swiftly challenged in the Supreme Court by ADR and other petitioners, including political parties and social activists. The petitioners argued that the SIR could disenfranchise a large number of genuine voters, especially from marginalised communities, due to the stringent documentary requirements and a tight deadline. They also questioned the ECI’s authority to conduct such a revision so close to an election.
The Supreme Court has been hearing the matter since July 10. During the initial hearings, the Court refused to halt the SIR but urged the ECI to “consider” accepting additional documents like Aadhaar, Voter ID, and Ration Cards for voter verification, which were initially excluded from the ECI’s list of 11 acceptable documents. The Court also expressed its concern about the potential for “mass exclusion” of voters and warned that it would intervene if any irregularities were found.
The ECI, in turn, defended its actions by stating it had the constitutional authority to carry out the SIR and that the process was being conducted transparently in collaboration with political parties’ Booth Level Agents (BLAs). The current hearing on August 6 is a follow-up to these earlier proceedings, triggered by the publication of the draft electoral roll with the significant deletion of 65 lakh names.
Related
ECI to SC: Voter ID insufficient for Bihar roll, defends citizenship verification power