Revision of Electoral Rolls in Bihar | Day 4: Exercise is not grounded in statutory provisions, argue petitioners

Singhvi: Nothing but a de facto deletion 

Singhvi stated that the ECI generally considers the guidelines laid down in Lal Babu Hussein v Electoral Registration Officer (1995), for any of its revision exercises. The decision held that while updating a roll, the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) must give “adequate probative value” to information provided by persons whose citizenship is under suspicion but were to be found in the preceding electoral roll. The ERO should entertain “all such evidence, documentary or otherwise” of the person. Moreover, the ERO must consult the relevant authority if that person’s citizenship is in doubt. Singhvi pointed out that these guidelines were being applied by the ECI in their other revision exercises, like the one in Jharkhand, where a yearly summary revision had taken place before Bihar. But in Bihar, no such consideration was factored in by the ECI. 

Justice Bagchi pointed out that the Jharkhand summary revision required seven documents. In contrast, 11 documents were sought in the Bihar SIR. The Judge stated that the expanding number of documents is not exclusionary but “is in fact voter-friendly”. Singhvi responded that the nature of the documents that were included have restricted coverage. For instance, the Indian Passport has less than two percent coverage. Further, there was no competent authority in Bihar to issue documents like a permanent residence certificate—another document in the SIR. On the aspect of matriculation/educational certificates, Singhvi highlighted that the exercise is skewed against women, as the number of women with these certificates was less than men. This buttressed petitioner Yogendra Yadav’s argument from yesterday that more women were deleted from the rolls than men. Singhvi then stated that the Aadhaar card has the maximum coverage, i.e. 87 percent. Along with that, the Electors Photo Identity Card (EPIC), was the “best” option. But these documents were not included in the ECI’s notification. 

Singhvi’s arguments then pivoted to the 65 lakh voters that were not included in the draft roll. He stated that these include persons who were removed from the rolls without any notice or process. He argued that such a procedure was contrary to the Representation of Peoples Act, 1950 (ROPA) or the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. 

He submitted that the SIR’s list of persons who were declared dead was not entirely accurate. There are many cases where the elector is alive. Political analyst and one of the petitioners in the case, Yogendra Yadav, demonstrated this in the hearing yesterday when he was accompanied in Court by two individuals who were removed from the roll because they were declared dead. Singhvi argued that there is a standard operating procedure involved in a “suo moto deletion” by the ECI, which was not followed. Further, he submitted that such a “suo moto deletion” cannot be undertaken in states where there are elections. He cited the example of Arunachal Pradesh and Maharashtra, where revision was exempted due to the state elections. 

Sankaranarayanan: Voters constitutionally entitled to be included in rolls 

Sankaranarayanan appeared for the Association for Democratic Reforms and the state of West Bengal. He brought the Court’s attention to a notice issued to the state three days ago about an SIR, for which it was not consulted. 

He submitted that, according to constitutional provisions, voters have a “sacrosanct” entitlement to be on the electoral rolls. Only an amendment to the ROPA could strip them of such “entitlement.” He stated that a constitutional right to be included in the electoral roll is distinct from the right to vote, which is a political right. He argued that the 65 lakh members were struck off the rolls based on no grounds mentioned in the statutory provisions. “Is this the way the custodian will trifle with us?” he asked, adding that the ECI was being “casual” with the voters. Just like Yadav yesterday, Sankaranarayanan warned that the number of deleted voters would only increase and perhaps cross one crore. 

Justice Bagchi pointed out that the ECI is given some “elbow space” under Section 21(3) of the ROPA. This provision states that the ECI can conduct a special revision in “such manner as it may think fit”. Sankaranarayanan responded that it did not allow the ECI to deviate from the prescribed procedure. He highlighted that, according to Section 21(3) of the Act, the ECI is allowed to conduct a special revision only in “exceptional circumstances” in one or a part of a constituency. But an intensive exercise was being undertaken for the first time in a whole state. 

In his conclusion, Sankaranarayanan pointed out three aspects. First, a Bench led by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia had pushed the ECI to consider the Aadhaar card as one of the documents, but the ECI had resisted the suggestion. Second, many of the voters deleted from the roll had voted in the past elections. Therefore, this exercise could not “rework the clock” and start the process again. Third, any person on the roll could only be removed through the procedure in the statutes. 

Bhushan: Give notice to voters who were removed from the roll 

Like Singhvi, Bhushan too cited Lal Babu Hussein to argue that the ECI could not undertake a citizenship test in the guise of a roll revision. He submitted that voters must be given notice and be heard by the ERO. Further, the ROPA and the Rules provide for a self-declaration of citizenship, which can be challenged only under the statute. He added that such a declaration was suitable, as many documents are unavailable to the voters. Lastly, he highlighted that the entire exercise of sending a notice to voters, with a hearing, a first appeal and a second appeal would be meaningless due to the limited time available to the ECI to finalise the electoral rolls before the elections in the state later this year. 

Bhushan then raised concerns that Booth Level Officers (BLOs) were filling out the enumeration forms themselves. This resulted in many dead voters being included in the list. Moreover, he stated that the draft electoral roll was easily accessible on the website and was searchable. But this was “deliberately removed” on 4 August, after the Leader of the Opposition, Rahul Gandhi, found discrepancies in electoral data. Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, for the ECI, was quick to interject that the ECI would not respond to the comments about Rahul Gandhi in the SIR case. 

Bhushan concluded his submissions by suggesting that the Court direct the ECI to release a list of 65 lakh voters who were deleted from the draft rolls, with a search functionality. This should include reasons for their exclusion from the rolls. 

Petitioners bat for existing rolls 

Farasat argued that the draft roll should be the existing roll, adding that no draft roll should have 65 lakh members deleted from the list. Those excluded, he said, had nowhere to go; therefore, the starting point should be the draft roll which existed on 24 June 2025, when the exercise was first notified. 

Sen argued that a complicated exercise, such as the SIR, was abruptly announced with a short timeline. A possible solution was the existing roll. For instance, he stated that it would be difficult to verify the addresses of homeless people. Earlier in the hearing, Singhvi had suggested that the SIR could be pushed to December, i.e. after the state elections. 

Petitioners will conclude their arguments and the ECI will commence its submissions tomorrow, i.e. 14 August 2025.