Today, On 7th October, in the Bihar SIR Row ,Supreme Court Questions Transparency in Bihar SIR Row | “A Person Would Know Whether His Name Is There on the Electoral Roll or Not,” Says Justice Kant as Bench Seeks ECI’s Response on Alleged Voter Deletions
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the Election Commission of India (ECI) over the lack of transparency in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the voters’ list, which reportedly led to the deletion of lakhs of names across Bihar.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan began the hearing by stating that he had analysed the final voters’ list of the 2003 special revision.
He said,
“Special Intensive Revision (SIR) has led to 7% reduction of voters, disproportionate exclusion of minority, women in Bihar,”
Bhushan added,
“The SIR was meant to clean up the electoral roll, but it has only compounded the problem. The Supreme Court had to force the Election Commission of India to publish the draft voter list.”
He further pointed out,
“There are no details about the 3.66 lakh voters deleted from the final list.”
Justice J. Joymalya Bagchi asked the ECI,
“Was data put up on the boards at BDOs’ offices?”
In response, Advocate A.M. Singhvi said,
“Individual voters were not informed separately about the deletion of their names.”
The ECI, however, objected to this claim.
Advocate Bhushan urged the Bench to let political activist Yogendra Yadav speak.
Justice Bagchi said Yadav could file an affidavit instead.
The ECI objected, saying,
“Petitioners cannot address the court directly when they have a counsel to represent them.”
Soon after, the Supreme Court issued a notice to the ECI on an application filed by the petitioners, questioning the lack of transparency about those deleted from the final electoral roll.
Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul’s Bench, which was hearing the matter, noted the need for factual evidence.
Justice Kant said,
“Someone should file an affidavit saying I have been deleted from the final list.”
When Advocate Singhvi pointed out,
“People should know they have been deleted,”
Justice Kant responded,
“A person would know whether his name is there on the electoral roll or not.”
Singhvi further added,
“The 65 lakh deleted from draft list remains out, some other people have been included.”
Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the ECI, said,
“Final voter list has been notified and shared with parties. A bare comparison of the draft list and the final one would reveal who remains deleted. Why have they not amended their petitions in the Supreme Court till now?”
He also claimed,
“Not a single affected party has complained, the problem is only for NGOs in Delhi.”
Justice Bagchi then underlined the constitutional importance of transparency.
He said,
“We open the rights of transparency and openness, regardless of who come to the Supreme Court,”
Justice Bagchi reiterated the need for transparency in the SIR process.
He observed,
“There is apprehension whether the addition of names in the final voters list is the earlier excluded ones or new ones. This exercise is in aid of the electoral process so that confidence in the process is fortified.”
He further reminded the ECI of its responsibility to maintain openness, saying,
“We had asked you (ECI) to be transparent about the names and details of the persons excluded, please do that.”
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
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
