Revision of Electoral Rolls in Bihar | Day 12: Court says it has ‘no doubt’ ECI will fulfill its responsibility to publish final voter lists; ECI to argue on 4 November
Challenge to the ECI’s Revision of Electoral Rolls in BiharJudges: Surya Kant J, Joymalya Bagchi J
The Supreme Court today continued hearing petitions challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Electoral Rolls in Bihar. A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi heard further submissions from Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi for the Election Commission of India (ECI), and Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan along with Advocates Prashant Bhushan and Vrinda Grover for the Petitioners.
The Bench took note of the petitioners’ concerns that the updated electoral rolls had not yet been made publicly available on the ECI website, but observed that the ECI is “bound to publish the rolls” and expressed confidence that it would fulfil its responsibilities ahead of the finalisation of the voter lists.
On Day 11, petitioner Yogendra Yadav argued that the SIR exercise had “weaponised” the routine process of updating electoral rolls, resulting in the unprecedented exclusion of lakhs of voters. He pointed to statistical anomalies, including a 47-lakh reduction in Bihar’s voter population, a widening gender gap, and numerous errors such as blank, gibberish and duplicate entries. Yadav contended that by shifting the burden of verification onto voters, the ECI had caused systemic exclusion, particularly among marginalised groups.
Petitioners flag opacity in publication of electoral data and seek real-time transparency
At the outset, Bhushan briefly addressed the Court, stating that the affidavit he had earlier tendered had been verified and refiled with all voter details. Justice Kant remarked that the issue “has no impact on the merits of the case.”
Grover then pointed out that the ECI was yet to reply to her interlocutory application concerning voter data. Dwivedi assured the Bench that a separate response would be filed.
Bhushan argued that the ECI’s Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, manuals, and guidelines required complete disclosure of new deletions and inclusions in the rolls. Referring to his 8 October affidavit, he submitted that the ECI had “not disclosed the complete list of new deletions” and warned that the rolls, which would freeze by 20 October, might differ from those to be ultimately published.
Dwivedi countered that the lists were already online. Bhushan disagreed, asserting that “that’s the 30 September list,” while subsequent modifications were not reflected. He reiterated the need for disclosure of inclusions and deletions, maintaining that “rules require real-time transparency”. Dwivedi replied, “Voters know everything. He can wait for data analytics and guide the ECI in future.”
Bhushan noted that several voters had reported deletions without receiving notice and argued that online publication was the only way to ensure accountability.
Court expresses confidence in ECI’s responsibility
Justice Kant observed that the final rolls must be available at every polling station and with all political parties. He remarked, “We have no doubt that the ECI will fulfill its responsibility. They are bound to publish the rolls. We are not closing the matter…”
When Bhushan claimed that more names had been deleted after the 65 lakh already struck off, Justice Kant clarified that “it is an ongoing exercise yet to culminate in a list.”
Justice Kant then noted that 17 October would be the last date for publishing the final list for the first phase of elections. “Let’s see what they publish,” he said, adding that the Court expected the ECI, “as a responsible authority,” to address typographical and structural errors previously flagged by Yadav.
The power to conduct an SIR: ECI directed to file submissions
Sankaranarayanan and Grover urged the Court to take up the constitutional question at the heart of the case — whether the ECI has the power to conduct a Special Intensive Revision independent of statutory authority. The Bench directed the ECI to file its written submissions on this issue before the next hearing. The Bench scheduled the next hearing for 4 November, when the ECI will present its submissions.