Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Today, On 1st September, The Supreme Court directed the Chairman of the Bihar State Legal Services Authority to deploy para-legal volunteers for helping voters and political parties file online claims, objections, and corrections during the Special Intensive Revision of Bihar’s electoral rolls.
The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Chairman of the Bihar State Legal Services Authority to assign para-legal volunteers to assist voters and political parties in submitting online claims, objections, or corrections related to the electoral roll being revised as part of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Bihar’s electoral rolls.
However, a Bench consisting of Justices Surya Kant and Joymlaya Bagchi chose not to extend the deadline for submitting these claims beyond September 1 (today).
This decision followed the Election Commission of India (ECI) assuring that objections received after today would still be considered before the finalization of the electoral roll.
The Court recorded the ECI’s statement that the process of considering claims would remain open until the last date for nominee submissions for the upcoming State Assembly elections.
The order stated,
“The process of consideration of claims will continue till the last date of nominations. Let the claims/objections be continued to be filed,”
Additionally, the Court noted the existence of significant disputed facts regarding the acceptance of claims and objections. To assist voters, who are the focal point of these proceedings, the Bench requested the Deputy Chairman of the Bihar State Legal Services Authority to issue instructions, preferably by tomorrow noon, to deploy para-legal volunteers.
These volunteers will help voters and political parties in submitting claims, objections, and corrections online. Each para-legal volunteer (PLV) will then compile a confidential report for the District Legal Services Authority Chairman, which will be aggregated at the State Legal Services Authority level for further review.
The Court was reviewing multiple petitions challenging the Bihar SIR process.
During a previous hearing on August 22, it had stated that individuals excluded from the draft electoral roll could submit their Aadhaar card along with the necessary form to contest their exclusion. This effectively allowed Aadhaar to serve as proof for inclusion in the voters’ list.
The Court also urged political parties to assist those excluded from the draft electoral rolls and expressed surprise at the report that only two objections had been submitted by political party BLAs.
In today’s hearing, the Court reiterated that Aadhaar must be recognized as a valid identity verification document.
Justice Kant emphasized,
“We have to be clear about Section 9 of the Aadhar card. Whatever value has been attached to the Aadhaar card has to be acknowledged,”
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), argued that voters should be informed about which documents the ECI has formally acknowledged before they decide to submit Aadhaar as part of their objection or claim.
He stated,
“They have not given the voters what has been received from them. Unless I know that…. They didn’t accept Aadhar in the first stage … Suppose I have not attached any document. They are saying anybody who has submitted the form is in the draft list. Our assertion is many of those forms are not filled by the voters themselves.”
In response, ECI counsel Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi assured that voters would be informed of any document discrepancies within seven days.
Dwivedi stated,
“99.5% of 7.24 crore (voters) have submitted documents. Most political parties are filing applications only for deletion and not for inclusion,”
The Court expressed concern about the timely notification of such discrepancies. Justice Kant queried,
“Suppose today you are able to verify 1000 voters. And suppose in 100 you find there are discrepancies. Will you wait till 25th September to disclose that?”
Dwivedi replied,
“No, that will take 7 days. It is an ongoing process.”
He further clarified that the filing of claims, objections, or corrections remains open after September 1 and will be considered post-finalization of the electoral roll.
Urging the Court not to officially extend any current deadlines to avoid the SIR process becoming a never-ending endeavor, he stated,
“They can keep on filing after 30th September. They will all be considered,”
Bhushan countered, suggesting that the recent floods in Bihar may have hindered some voters’ ability to submit claims. He pointed out that the order to publish the list with reasons was uploaded on August 17, following the Aadhaar inclusion order, and the floods could impact the process.
Bhushan remarked,
“They (ECI) are not following their own manual for transparency. I don’t know what is there in my form … they are asking everybody whose name is not in the roll to fill up form 6,”
Dwivedi responded,
“People don’t have a problem. Only ADR has a problem. They are all filling form 6.”
Advocate Nizam Pasha, also representing the petitioners, claimed that the ECI was only accepting Form 6 for inclusion/exclusion and not any other forms.
He noted,
“When the documents are filed, let it be reflected online. They are changing it,”
He asserted,
“This is all misleading. We are giving the new forms. Every week it is being provided to the political parties also,”
The Court ultimately decided to involve para-legal volunteers to facilitate this process.
Justice Kant stated before issuing the order,
“We can ask district legal services authorities to deploy para legal volunteers to help fill up the forms,”
Senior Advocate Shoeb Alam, representing the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), also contributed to the discussion, noting discrepancies in claims reported by the ECI.
To which the Court responded by highlighting the inconsistency, he argued,
“They are saying that 36 claims came from BLAs filed by RJD – (this) is misleading. Please see my IA. On affidavit. They are saying I only have 10 claims,”
Bhushan remarked,
“The problem really is in the lack of transparency,”
To which Dwivedi responded,
“Problem is in the mindset, which is to disrupt.”
Today, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan requested the Court to extend this relief to others as well.
He urged,
“65 lakh, your lordships said Aadhar (can be given). Your lordships have limited (such relief) …. We are saying, whenever (someone) is responding, (ECI) may look at the Aadhar. Please extend it to everyone who is receiving notice, instead of restricting it to 65 lakhs,”
However, the Court was not inclined to extend the relief at this time.
Justice Kant concluded,
“If beyond 65 lakh, they are not accepting, then we are here. We will meet again on 8th September,”
In a previous hearing, the Court was informed that 65 lakh names had been removed from the draft electoral roll published on August 1. The ECI assured that no names would be deleted without prior notice and an opportunity for a hearing. On August 14, the Court directed the Commission to upload the list of the 65 lakh voters slated for deletion during the SIR process.
By August 22, the Court was informed that this direction had been followed, and those whose names were deleted could submit Aadhaar as proof of identity when contesting such deletions.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Advocate Prashant Bhushan appeared on behalf of ADR, Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi represented the Election Commission of India, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for RJD MP Manoj Kumar Jha, while Advocate Nizam Pasha represented Bihar MLA Akhtarul Iman.
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.
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