Today, On 7th October, in the Bihar SIR Row ,ECI Defends Special Intensive Revision in Supreme Court, Saying “Not a Single Affected Party Has Complained, Only Delhi NGOs Doing Data Analysis,” Highlighting Lack of Field-Level Grievances in Voter List Updates Across Bihar
New Delhi: The Election Commission of India (ECI) strongly defended its Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Bihar’s electoral rolls in the Supreme Court, asserting that there have been no substantial grievances from voters on the ground.
Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing the ECI, claimed that only a few Delhi-based organizations were raising data-driven objections without any field verification.
He also claimed,
“Not a single affected party has complained, the problem is only for NGOs in Delhi.”
Addressing the Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, Dwivedi dismissed accusations of widespread voter deletions and lack of transparency in the revision process.
He stated,
“It is just ADR, PUCL and some individuals (politicians) in Delhi who want to carry out data analysis. But on the ground, there is no complaint.”
Dwivedi emphasized that the process was entirely transparent and that each deletion adhered to established procedures.
He noted, adding that the final electoral roll has been officially notified and that no affected individuals have filed an appeal to date,
“Each voter whose name was deleted has been issued an order. There is a complete record available with the Election Commission,”
He pointed out that the petitioners had not amended their pleas following the publication of the final rolls.
He asserted,
“Without challenging the final list, these petitions are academic in nature,”
Dwivedi further warned that any interference at this juncture would disrupt the election process, as the Bihar Assembly polls are set for November 6 and 11, with counting scheduled for November 14, 2025.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), alleged that the revision has disproportionately excluded women, Muslims, and marginalized groups.
He contended that what was intended to clean up the electoral rolls has instead “compounded the problem.”
Bhushan criticized the ECI for failing to provide lists of deleted voters, speaking orders, or the public disclosure required, claiming,
“Instead of transparency, there is opacity. The deletions and notices should be publicly available on the EC website.”
Justice Bagchi remarked,
“We had directed that names of deleted voters be displayed on boards across districts. The issue here is transparency. We have no problem with removing dead or moved voters, but the process must follow Rule 21 and SOPs.”
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, also representing the petitioners, expressed concern about the lack of notice to voters whose names were deleted.
He questioned,
“The portal shows deletions, but individuals don’t get reasons or notice. Without that, how can they appeal?”
In response, Justice Kant stated,
“If anyone can give a list of voters out of the 3.66 lakh who haven’t received orders, we will direct the EC to issue them. Every voter has a right to appeal.”
The Court acknowledged that while the ECI asserts that all deleted voters were informed, the petitioners could provide examples or affidavits to demonstrate otherwise. Bhushan indicated he could provide details for 65 individuals immediately.
The Bench noted that the issue should not become a “roving inquiry,” but if prima facie violations are evident, appropriate directions could be issued.
Justice Kant added,
“It should not appear as a fishing expedition. But if we find substance, we will act.”
Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, also representing the ECI, supported Dwivedi’s claims, stating,
“The petitioners claim deletions without proof. Even the two persons they (Yogendra Yadav) produced earlier failed to provide basic particulars.”
Justice Kant responded,
“We are aware of one of them but prefer not to disclose in Court.”
Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria urged the Court to restrain political or civil society commentary that undermines the credibility of the electoral process, saying,
“This constant refrain of ‘vote chori’ or stolen votes is damaging. The Court is already monitoring the issue; such parallel campaigns must stop.”
The Bench acknowledged these submissions, noting that the petitions raise broader questions of transparency but agreed that the ECI’s statutory process must proceed without disruption.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi commented that the Court’s role is limited to ensuring a fair procedure.
He remarked,
“The exercise of revision is an aid and supports the electoral process and strengthens public confidence,”
The matter is scheduled for further hearing on October 9, during which the petitioners are expected to submit an affidavit detailing the deletions.
The Court has been overseeing the Bihar SIR since July of this year.
Earlier, On July 10, the Bench instructed the ECI to accept Aadhaar cards, ration cards, and EPICs as valid forms of identification for voter inclusion. Subsequently, it permitted the publication of the draft electoral rolls on August 1, while cautioning that it would step in if there were instances of “mass exclusion.”
Earlier, On September 8, the court had ordered the Election Commission to accept Aadhaar as proof of identity, adding it to the list of 11 other acceptable documents.
However, it clarified that Aadhaar could not be used to prove citizenship. On Monday, the bench issued a notice regarding the petition for modification and scheduled October 7 for final arguments on the legitimacy of the SIR process.
Earlier, On August 6, the Court learned that 6.5 million names were removed from the draft electoral roll published on August 1. The ECI assured the Court that no names would be removed without prior notice, an opportunity for a hearing, and a reasoned order from the appropriate authority.
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.
Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi, along with others such as RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav, participated in a Voter Adhikar Yatra in Bihar to protest what they describe as widespread vote theft aimed at benefiting the BJP, allegedly in collusion with the Election Commission.
The Opposition contends that the Bihar SIR is a significant part of this scheme.
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.
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 Previous Reports on Bihar SIR Row