Today, On 13th August, During Bihar SIR hearing in the Supreme Court, Advocate Prashant Bhushan alleged that the Election Commission of India removed the search provision from voter rolls immediately after Rahul Gandhi’s press conference, claiming vote theft, raising serious concerns over electoral transparency and fairness.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court heard on a series of petitions contesting the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) decision to conduct a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, which is preparing for elections.
The bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi summarized the petitioners’ stance, emphasizing that it represents a conflict between constitutional entitlement and constitutional rights.
The petitioners contend that the Election Commission lacks the authority to determine citizenship or to effectively remove an elector from the electoral list.
In a previous session, the Bench, which also includes Justice Surya Kant, acknowledged the possibility of “mistakes” in the preparation of the draft roll and recognized the ECI’s readiness to rectify them.
However, the petitioners reminded the court of its earlier commitment to intervene if the SIR led to “mass exclusion.”
The draft electoral roll was published on August 1, with the final list expected to be released on September 30. Opposition parties have raised concerns that this process could disenfranchise millions of eligible voters.
Prashant Bhushan stated that,
“The search function was removed from the ECI’s website following Rahul Gandhi’s press conference, where he alleged vote theft against the commission on August 4. “
Bhushan claims that the searchable list was accessible until that date.
Prashant Bhushan’s Five Allegations Against the ECI:
- The ECI’s urgency in conducting the SIR reflects malafide intentions.
- The ECI’s refusal to accept Aadhaar and EPIC.
- The ECI did not publish the names of 65 lakh deleted voters or the reasons for their removal.
- The removal of the mechanism to search for names in the draft electoral roll.
- Bhushan asserts that he can guarantee that Booth Level Officers (BLOs) were completing enumeration forms and signing for them, which is why many deceased individuals appear in the draft electoral roll.
He argues that none of the 11 documents presented can be considered proof of citizenship. The ECI cannot make determinations about citizenship unless the citizenship of an existing elector is called into question. Even then, he insists, the matter must be addressed through a proper inquiry.
The Apex Court noted that the Election Commission of India (ECI) allowing 11 documents as proof of identity for the recent Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the voter list in Bihar, in contrast to just seven documents for the summary revision of electoral rolls conducted in Jharkhand, indicates that the process is “in fact voter-friendly.”
At the end of the hearing, Justice Kant asked the other counsel for the petitioners how much time they needed and kept half an hour time for them tomorrow.
In the previous hearing, the bench looked into whether the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process should aim to balance the deletion of bogus voters with the inclusion of genuine ones. It also examined the legality of changing official orders through press releases, the extent to which citizens carry the burden of proving their eligibility, and the practicality of the verification targets set for Electoral Registration Officers (EROs).
Kapil Sibal pointed out that in a small constituency, twelve individuals have been incorrectly marked as deceased, despite being alive.
Yogendra Yadav argued that the large-scale voter deletion exercise could end up excluding poor and marginalised groups, even though India already has a high level of voter registration.
He also raised doubts about the assumptions and methodology used for the process.
Case Title: In Association for Democratic Reforms & Others v. Election Commission of India, W.P.(C) No. 640/2025