Bihar SIR Row| “Names Of 65 Lakh Dropped Voters Published On District Websites”: ECI To Supreme Court

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

The Election Commission informed the Supreme Court that names and details of 65 lakh voters, excluded from Bihar’s draft electoral roll, have been published on all 38 district websites, ensuring transparency and compliance with the Court’s directions.

New Delhi: The Election Commission submitted an affidavit to the Supreme Court indicating that the names and details of 6.5 million voters in Bihar, who were not included in the draft electoral roll published on August 1, have been made available on the websites of all 38 District Electoral Officers in the state.

This list also outlines the reasons for their exclusion, including death, relocation, or duplicate entries, as stated by the ECI.

Furthermore, physical copies of the list have been posted in Panchayat Bhavans, block development offices, and Panchayat offices in villages throughout Bihar to ensure easy access for the public and facilitate inquiries.

The ECI has also advertised the online availability of these lists in major newspapers, on radio and television, and on social media platforms.

The affidavit was filed in response to the Supreme Court’s directive on August 14, which instructed the ECI to publish a detailed, booth-wise list of the approximately 6.5 million voters excluded during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise in Bihar, which is preparing for elections.

The ECI informed the court that its public notices have explicitly mentioned that voters who feel aggrieved by their non-inclusion can submit copies of their Aadhaar cards along with their claims.

The court was informed that around 6.5 million names were removed from the draft roll, despite the fact that these names had previously appeared in the voters’ list created following a summary revision in January 2025.

A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi will continue hearing a series of petitions challenging the Election Commission’s decision to conduct the SIR of electoral rolls in Bihar.

These petitions were filed by RJD MP Manoj Jha, the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), PUCL, activist Yogendra Yadav, Trinamool MP Mahua Moitra, and former Bihar MLA Mujahid Alam.

The petitions seek a directive to annul the ECI’s June 24 order, which requires significant numbers of voters in Bihar to provide proof of citizenship to remain on the electoral rolls.

Concerns have also been raised about the exclusion of commonly held documents such as Aadhaar and ration cards, arguing that this would disproportionately impact poor and marginalized voters, particularly in rural areas of Bihar.

Earlier, on 14th August, The Supreme Court announced during Bihar Special Intensive Revision (SIR) case, that individuals whose names have been removed from the state’s voter lists can use their Aadhaar cards to contest this deletion.

Previously, the Election Commission had resisted accepting Aadhaar as valid, arguing that while it serves as proof of identity, it does not confirm citizenship.

The Election Commission of India (ECI), On 24 June 2025, started a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls in Bihar before the Assembly elections. Under this process, voters were asked to provide updated documents, but many citizens did not have them.

Opposition parties and several NGOs criticised this move, saying it could deprive a large number of genuine voters of their right to vote. They approached the Supreme Court (SC), calling the ECI’s action arbitrary and against the Constitution.

The Commission, On 1 August 2025, released the draft electoral roll, which showed a total of 7.24 crore registered voters. At the same time, around 65 lakh names were removed from the list.

Petitioners, including the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), requested the Supreme Court to order the ECI to make public the full list of voters whose names were dropped, along with the reasons for each deletion. They said that without such transparency, many citizens might lose their right to vote without being given a fair chance to object.




Similar Posts