Today, On 12th August, In the Bihar SIR controversy, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal sharply criticized the Election Commission, saying, “What are the BLOs doing? People who are dead are shown alive.” The Supreme Court is hearing serious challenges to the revision process.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court heard several significant cases today, including the Special Voter List Revision (SIR) issued in Bihar.
This hearing also addressed petitions related to various political figures and constitutional matters.
The bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter.
A three-way contest is unfolding regarding the Bihar SIR, with the opposition and the Election Commission both involved.
The BJP and NDA alliance have accused the opposition of attempting to intimidate the Election Commission, which has rejected claims of any discrepancies in the SIR.
Justice Suryakant inquired of the petitioners whether such a process could be implemented.
He stated,
“If you say that such a process is allowed under the conditional scheme, then we will consider the process. If you say that it is not in the Constitution, then according to that,”
In response, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan noted that there has been significant boycott, with 65 lakh people affected.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioners, pointed out a situation where twelve living individuals were incorrectly recorded as deceased by the electoral authorities. In response, Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, speaking for the ECI, noted that the published roll was merely a draft, acknowledging that such a large-scale operation is likely to contain errors.
The Supreme Court remarked that large-scale removals will depend on factual evidence.
Kapil Sibal pointed out that in a small constituency, twelve individuals have been incorrectly marked as deceased, despite being alive.
He asserted that the BLO had not taken adequate action.
He remarked,
“What are the BLOs doing? People who are dead are shown to be alive and vice versa.”
Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi added that this is merely a draft roll.
To this, the Supreme Court responded, asking,
“We have to ask you how many people have been identified as dead. Your officers must have done some work.”
In reply, Dwivedi acknowledged that there might be some errors in such a large-scale process but emphasized that it is incorrect to label a living person as dead and stated that there is no need for a new IA.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan raised concerns about the decision to make the draft roll non-searchable.
He stated,
“On August 4, the draft roll was searchable. After August 6, they have removed it and now names cannot be searched. That was suspicious,”
He also mentioned that Block Level Officers (BLOs) have rejected at least 10-12 percent of applications without providing any justification.
He explained,
“Among the 7.24 crore people who filled up enumeration forms, BLO have written against each of them stating recommended and not recommended. We have lists from two districts from a whistleblower… Now there are at least 10-12 percent are not recommended… and they are the ones who submitted the forms,”
At the conclusion of the hearing, psephologist Yogendra Yadav addressed the Bench regarding the issue, asserting that the SIR was inherently leading to mass exclusions.
At the end of today’s hearing, Justice Kant expressed gratitude to Yadav for his input.
The proceedings are set to continue on Wednesday.
Case Title: In Association for Democratic Reforms & Others v. Election Commission of India, W.P.(C) No. 640/2025
Read Attachment
Read More Reports On Bihar Voter List Row