Revision of Electoral Rolls in Bihar | Day 10: SC directs petitioners to produce affidavits from affected voters

Court flags importance of proper communication to deleted voters

At the outset, Bhushan submitted that an analysis of the final electoral roll revealed that the SIR had “compounded” the problem instead of cleaning up the electoral roll. This, he explained, was on the basis of a study of the ECI’s 2003 and 2016 SIR Guidelines. He argued that the Commission disclosed the list of 65 lakh deletions only when compelled by the Court, but had failed to provide the list of 3.66 lakh voters deleted on objections. He argued that the SIR had excluded groups such as women and minorities. Justice Bagchi recalled that the Court had directed names to be displayed across district offices. Bhushan replied that this had not been implemented.

Singhvi argued that the process of deletion lacked transparency, pointing out that the portal merely reflected a voter as “deleted” without any accompanying notice or explanation. “There is no question of appeal because no one knows. The least they can do is inform,” he submitted.

In response, Dwivedi maintained that the Commission had issued orders in every case of deletion. Justice Kant stepped in to note that the Court would intervene if any names had been struck off without proper communication, and stated, “If anyone can give the list of voters out of these 3.66 lakh who have not received orders, we will direct the ECI to give them orders… Everyone has a right to appeal.”

Bhushan pressed that the safeguard would only be meaningful if such information was published online, observing that once it appeared on the website “then no one can deny.”

Dwivedi submitted that a simple comparison of the draft and final rolls would reveal any deletions. He added that no one except the petitioners had raised objections against the ECI. Justice Bagchi observed that while natural deletions such as deaths and migrations were acceptable, “if you are deleting someone, please follow Rule 21 of Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. We also said that whoever is deleted, please put up their data in your electoral offices.” He expressed concern that the final roll had created a “confusion of general democratic process,” and asked, “What is the identity of the add-ons? Is it of deleted names or new names?” Dwivedi replied, “Most are new voters.”

Affidavits from affected voters; a question of locus standi

Justice Kant asked if the concern about lakhs of deletions still stood, and Bhushan replied, “Please see what is the end result of SIR.” He requested time for Yadav to explain how SIR had disproportionately excluded groups like women and Muslims. Grover added that no disaggregated, gender-wise or age-wise data was available, leaving citizens “in the dark.” The Court directed Yadav to first file an affidavit.

Bhushan urged that the matter be taken up urgently, but Justice Kant asked, “Where are the affected people?” Bhushan replied, “I can bring 100. How many do your lordships want?” The Court noted that relief could be directed if individuals came forward. Bhushan alleged “en masse violation” and handed over a list of 65 persons, promising to file affidavits the same day. Justice Kant observed that the affidavit “does not say much,” showing only that a person deleted in the draft roll had not been reinstated despite applying. The Commission objected to handing over documents in Court, and Justice Kant cautioned, “It should not look like a roving enquiry. If we are prima facie satisfied, we can pass orders.”

Singhvi added that without disclosure of data, deletions could not be verified. Bhushan asked, “How many people can we bring individually?” Hansaria objected to the petitioners’ conduct, saying, “Let them stop defaming ECI. In the media, they say vote chori… They must stop. This Court is monitoring, there cannot be a parallel.” He also urged expedition of SIR in other states. Justice Kant clarified that the Court had monitored Bihar specifically, while other states remain under the “domain of the ECI.” Bhushan cautioned against turning the process into a “fait accompli,” pressing to show ECI deviations.

Justice Bagchi instructed the ECI to compare the draft and final rolls, noting that the omissions were clear from the names and directing them to provide the information. Bhushan responded that while the CEC claimed to have the list of 3.66 lakh deletions, it had not been shared. He added that with 20–21 lakh additions and 3.66 lakh deletions, it was difficult to determine how many original January 2025 voters had been removed or replaced, even though the ECI had the data at the click of a button. “The question is, for whom this exercise is to be done,” asked Justice Kant, to which Bhushan replied that every individual voter could not realistically file an affidavit.

Justice Kant further observed that the Commission would not place any information from headquarters on record without verifying it from the field. Bhushan countered that the data was already compiled at the field level and with the CEC but had simply not been shared.

The hearing will resume on 9 October.