Bihar SIR : Claims/Objections Can Be Filed Even After Sept 1 Deadline, Says ECI; Supreme Court Deputes Paralegals To Assist Voters

In the Bihar Special Intensive Revision (SIR) matter, the Election Commission of India told the Supreme Court on Monday that claims/objections can be filed with respect to the draft electoral rolls even after the September 1 deadline and that all such claims/objections filed before the last date of nominations will be considered.

Taking note of this submission, the Court did not pass any order to extend the September 1 deadline. A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was considering the applications filed by political parties seeking to extend the deadline by two weeks.

The bench recorded the submission of the Election Commission of India that claims/objections can be submitted even after the deadline (September 1) and that they will be considered after the roll has been finalized. The process will continue until the last date of nominations and all inclusions/exclusions will be integrated in the final roll, the ECI stated, which the Court recorded.

The Court observed :

"As regards extension of time, note (submitted by the ECI) says that filing of claims/objections or corrections is not barred after 1 Sept. It is stated that the claims/objections/corrections can be submitted even after the deadline, ie after 1 September and same will be considered after roll has been finalized. The process will continue until the last date of nominations and all inclusions/exclusions are integrated in the final roll. In light of this stand, let the claims/objections/corrections be continued to be filed. Meanwhile, political parties/petitioners may submit their affidavits in response to the note."

Court directs para-legal volunteers of the legal services authority to assist the voters

The Court also requested the Executive Chairman of the Bihar State Legal Services Authority to issue instructions by tomorrow before noon to all the District Legal Services Authorities to depute/notify para-legal volunteers, along with their names and mobile numbers, who will assist the individual voters and political parties for the online submission of claims, objections or corrections. Each paralegal volunteer shall thereafter submit a confidential report to the concerned District Judge. This information so collected from the paralegal volunteers, may be collated at the level of the State Legal Services Authority, the Court ordered.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, for the Election Commission of India, submitted that the political parties are filing objections seeking deletion of voters from the draft list and not any claims for inclusion, which he termed "very strange."  As regards RJD's application seeking extension of the deadline, Dwivedi said that their only grievance was that the objections filed by them have not been shown in their names. He said that 99.5% out of 7.24 crores voters have filed their forms. Out of the 65 lakhs voters excluded from the draft,  only 33,326 (individuals) plus 25 claims (through parties) have been submitted for inclusion after the order of the Court on August 22. He added that 1,34,738 objections have been filed for exclusion

Advocate Prashant Bhushan submitted that the ECI officials are not following their own manuals. Advocate Nizam Pasha claimed that BLOs were refusing to accept forms. Senior Advocate Shoeb Alam, for the RJD,  said that after the Court allowed the use of Aadhaar for inclusion as per its order by August 22, there has been only nine days before the deadline.

The Court was dealing with applications filed by political party representatives, including RJD MP Manoj Kumar Jha and Bihar MLA Akhtarul Iman, seeking extension of the September 1 deadline. The matter was mentioned for urgent listing last week, when the Court was informed that 80,000 claims were filed within 3 weeks before its last order and 95,000 claims in the week thereafter.

In its previous order, the Court had directed ECI to allow approximately 65 lakhs excluded voters to submit applications for inclusion through online mode along with their Aadhaar card. While posting the matters to September 8, it had orally assured the parties on said occasion that a request for extension of the deadline could be considered later.

Prior to that, on August 14, the Court had directed ECI to publish the names of the 65 lakh excluded voters on Bihar CEO's website as well as websites of the District Electoral Officers, along with the reasons for their exclusion. The information was to be displayed in EPIC-searchable format.

Developments so far

On July 28, the Court refused to stop the ECI from publishing draft electoral rolls for Bihar on August 1. But, it orally told the ECI to atleast consider Aadhaar Card and EPIC. Justice Kant impressed upon ECI that instead of "en masse exclusion", there should be, "en masse inclusion".

On July 29, the Court was told that 65 lakh persons are likely to be excluded from the draft electoral rolls. In response, it orally said that if there is mass exclusion, it will step in.

On August 6 (after the draft list was published), ADR filed an application alleging that ECI had not disclosed details of the omitted 65 lakh voters. It further claimed that in case of some voters who were included in the list, the BLOs had 'not recommended' the names and reasons for exclusion were not made available. Thereafter, ECI filed an affidavit stating inter-alia that (i) it is not obligated under the applicable Rules to publish a separate list of persons who have not been included in the draft electoral roll, (ii) the Rules do not mandate it to furnish reasons for non-inclusion of any individual in the draft roll.

On August 12, the petitioners opened arguments, details of which can be read here. It was contended inter-alia that the Bihar SIR is illegal and the onus of proving citizenship cannot be shifted on voters/electors. A key aspect of the hearing was the production of two persons in Court, who were allegedly declared dead by the ECI in Bihar's draft rolls after SIR. The bench however was of the view that the same could be due to an 'inadvertent error', which could be rectified.

On August 13, referring to Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, the bench asked both sides whether ECI does not have residual power to conduct an exercise like Bihar SIR in a "manner it deemed fit". Insofar as the issue of West Bengal SIR initiation was raised, the bench said that the same will be dealt with later. Pursuant to an allegation that ECI deleted the searchability feature in draft electoral rolls published on its website, the bench asked both sides to inform whether the draft rolls were published in the Electoral Registration Office in compliance with the 1960 Rules.

For a detailed background, click here.

Case Title: ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ORS. Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA, W.P.(C) No. 640/2025 (and connected cases)

Click Here To Read/Download Order