Bihar SIR | There's Confusion If Additions In Final Voters' List Are From Names Deleted Earlier : Supreme Court Tells Election Commission

In the pleas challenging the Election Commission of India's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar,the Supreme Court on Tuesday (October 7) orally said that there was some confusion as to whether the voters added in the final electoral list were from the list of voters who were previously deleted from the draft list or totally new names.

A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was responding to the petitioners' demand that the Election Commission of India must publish the list of names of 3.66 lakh voters who were additionally deleted from the final list, and the names of the 21 lakh voters who were included in it.

Orally asking the ECI to get the necessary information, the Court adjourned the hearing till next Thursday (October 9).

In the hearing today, Advocate Prashant Bhushan, for ADR, submitted that the SIR has resulted in the disproportionate exclusion of women, Muslims etc.. Instead of cleaning up the voters' list, the process has "compounded the problems", Bhushan claimed.

He added that the Election Commission has not given the reasons for the deletion of the voters and has not published the list of the additional 3.66 lakh voters who were deleted after the publication of the draft list.

When the bench asked can't the deleted voters file appeals, Senior Advocate Dr AM Singhvi submitted that without knowing the reasons, they cannot file. Also, no list of deleted names has been published. "Persons who are deleted do not get notice that they are deleted. They don't get the reasons. There is no question of appeal because no one knows. Least they can do is inform," Singhvi said. Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, for the ECI, contested this submission, saying that deleted persons have been given the orders.

Justice Kant then said, "If anyone can give the list of voters out of these 3.66 lakh who have not received orders...we will direct EC to give them orders...everyone has right to appeal."  Bhushan demanded that the list of deleted names must be published on the official website.

Dwivedi said that none of the affected voters has approached the Court and "only politicians and NGO sitting in Delhi" are raising the issue. He also highlighted that the petitioners have not challenged the final list published on September

Singhvi said that without the ECI publishing the names, it is not possible to ascertain who has been deleted or included. 65 Lakh persons were deleted after the publication of the draft. At the time of the final list, the ECI said they have added about 21 lakh voters. Singhvi said it is not clear if these newly added persons were among the voters whose names were deleted initially, or were totally new persons. Also, 3.66 lakh persons have been additionally deleted at the time of the final list, he added.

Justice Bagchi also voiced a similar concern, saying that there was a "confusion" as to whether the deleted names were add-ons on the previously deleted names.

"Final list appears to be an appreciation of numbers...there is confusion of general democratic process about what is the identity of the add-ons. Is it an add-on of deleted names or or is it an add-on of independent new names? There will be some new names also," Justice Bagchi said.

Dwivedi said that most of the add-ons are new voters. Seeking more clarity, Justice Bagchi said, "This exercise is in aid of the electoral process that you have started, so that the confidence in the electoral process is fortified."

Justice Kant said that the Court can pass certain directions if any affected person approaches the Court. Bhushan said that he can bring hundreds of people. "I can bring 100...how many your lordships want? I have already given 1 illustration..How many will come forward? There's en mass violation," Bhushan said. He handed over the affidavit of an individual whose name was allegedly deleted.

When Bhushan said that the ECI must publish the list of the new deletions and additions, Justice Kant said that if any prima facie case is shown, the Court will direct. Bhushan then pointed out that the Supreme Court had earlier directed the publication of the names of the 65 lakh voters who were deleted from the draft.

"It should not look like a roving enquiry. If we are prima facie satisfied, we can pass orders," Justice Kant said.

During the hearing, the ECI objected to the petitioners handing over documents to the bench across the bar and insisted that they should file affidavits as per the proper procedure. Dwivedi also mentioned that the ECI has already announced the election schedule and referred to Article 329 to say that Courts disfavour interference once the election process has commenced.

Ultimately, the bench posted the matter to next Thursday, asking the ECI to get the necessary information. Addressing the ECI's lawyers, Justice Bagchi said,       " Mr.Dwivedi and Mr.Maninder Singh, you have the draft list and the final list. Omission is clear from the names. Just cull out that and give us information."

Bhushan said that the ECI can do this with the "click of one button."

Justice Kant then observed, "The question of probing so much will arise when the are some genuine people. There are also illegal immigrants who do not want to be exposed. Let's have a list of 100-200 people who say that we want to file appeal but don't have the order."

Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria appearing for Ashwini Upadhyaya - who has filed a petition seeking SIR in all states - opposed the petitioners' demands. He alleged that the petitioners were defaming the ECI by making campaigns in the name of "vote chori" in media.

Developments so far

On July 10, the Court passed an order directing the ECI to consider Aadhaar card, ration card and the EPIC as documents for inclusion in the voters list. 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. A day later, 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 inter-alia that ECI had not disclosed details of the omitted 65 lakh voters. ECI filed its counter-affidavit in response.

On August 12, the petitioners opened arguments, contending inter-alia that the Bihar SIR was illegal and the onus of proving citizenship cannot be shifted on voters/electors. 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.

On August 14, the Court 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.

On August 22, the Court directed ECI to allow approximately 65 lakhs excluded voters to submit applications for inclusion through online mode along with their Aadhaar card.

On September 1, the Court dealt with applications seeking extension of the deadline to file claims/objections to the draft roll. In this regard, ECI told the Court that claims/objections could be filed even after the deadline and all such claims/objections filed before the last date of nominations will be considered. Considering, the Court did not extend the deadline. On a request for a direction that ECI accept Aadhaar card of 7.24 crore (approx.) voters as well, whose enumeration forms were submitted, it told the petitioners to flag specific instances where ECI has denied accepting Aadhaar of a voter in the 7.24 crore category.

On September 8, the Supreme Court directed ECI to treat Aadhaar card as a "12th document" which could be produced as proof of identity for the purpose of inclusion in the revised voters list of Bihar. The Court clarified that Aadhaar shall not be a proof of citizenship and that ECI officials would be entitled to verify the authenticity and genuineness of Aadhaar cards produced by voters.

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