Revision of Electoral Rolls in Bihar | Day 17: SC stresses State role in easing BLO hardship during SIR

Petitioners flag suicides and coercion among BLOs

At the outset, Sankarnarayanan, appearing for the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), informed the Court that 35 to 40 BLOs had died by suicide during the ongoing SIR process and that many were anganwadi workers and teachers. Further, many of them faced notices under Section 32 of the Representation of the People (RP) Act, 1950, which punishes any breach of duty during the preparation of electoral rolls.

The notices carried a risk of imprisonment for two years for failure to meet timelines. He also referred to roughly 50 FIRs said to have been registered against BLOs in Uttar Pradesh. “This is a human story,” he said.

CJI Surya Kant observed that “if the SIR is a lawful exercise, it has to be performed,” but immediately stressed the State’s role in deployment. He noted that States could substitute workers who faced hardship. Justice Bagchi pointed to pleadings that mentioned FIRs in Noida and an FIR against the ECI in West Bengal.

The Bench directed that states must depute additional staff to reduce working hours, must consider exemption requests on a case-by-case basis and replace such personnel. The Court affirmed that any individual seeking further relief may approach the Court.

Bhushan: ECI cannot determine citizenship under its SIR instructions

Bhushan relied on the Election Commission’s 2003 SIR guidelines and argued that enumerators and Electoral Registration Officers cannot determine citizenship under the Citizenship Act, 1955. Citing the Supreme Court in Lal Babu Hussein v Electoral Registration Officer (1995), he submitted, “It is not the job of the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) to determine citizenship. All that they can do is to refer it. These authorities alone will determine it.” He read from the ECI’s pro forma which requires the ERO to refer doubtful cases to the competent authority and to await that authority’s decision before taking action.

Bhushan: 65 lakh deletions treated as new voters, forcing “a false declaration”

Bhushan then argued that 65 lakh names were removed from the electorall roll during the SIR exercise on the ground that they had not filled the SIR form. This reduced the roll from 7.89 crore to 7.24 crore. He submitted that the 65 lakh deleted electors were directed to return to the roll only through Form 6 under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, a form designed for first-time applicants that requires a declaration that the applicant was not previously on the roll. “They would have to file a false declaration,” he said, because these electors appeared on the earlier roll and had been removed only due to the SIR mechanism.

Bhushan said this treatment effectively converted long-standing electors into new applicants and shifted the statutory burden from the State to the individual, contrary to the scheme of the RP Act. He cautioned that in a country where many citizens lack formal proof of birth or residence, the Form 6 route would exclude large numbers of bona fide electors who rely on affidavits or neighbour attestations.

Bhushan: Transparency lapses and duplicate entries persist

Bhushan returned to transparency obligations. He cited the ECI’s manuals that require daily computerisation of application forms, weekly lists of claims and objections to be shared with political parties, and public display of lists at the ERO office and polling station. “In Bihar they did not do so at all,” he submitted. He further said that roughly 5 lakh duplicate entries remained on the roll and had increased after the SIR. He reiterated that ward or gram sabha level social audits, where BLOs read names aloud for local verification, remain the most dependable method to ascertain who has moved away.

Alam: Grounds for SIR already provided in the 1960 Rules

Alam closed the day’s submissions by advancing a narrow reading of Section 21(3) of the RP Act. He described Section 21(3) as the statutory provision that permits a special revision but argued that its non obstante clause applies only to the provision it mentions and cannot be read as a licence to disregard the remainder of the RP Act or the 1960 rules.

The matter will be heard next on 9 December.