Revision of Electoral Rolls in Bihar | Day 5: SC directs ECI to publish details of deleted names

Pasha: The cut-off date of January 2003 is arbitrary 

Pasha attacked the cut-off date of 1 January 2003 set by the ECI to justify the exercise, arguing that it was “fundamentally flawed”. He argued that there is no distinction in rigour between a summary and an intensive revision of rolls under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (ROPA) and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.

Rules 8A, 9, 10 and 11 of the Rules, he said, require publication and verification in either case and even in summary revisions, the names of deceased persons are removed. Therefore, Pasha submitted that the basis for selecting 1 January 2003 lacked any “intelligible differentia” and was unconstitutional. Further, he argued that the most recent rolls published in January 2025, as part of summary revision, were protected by the guidelines laid out by the Court in Lal Babu Hussein v Electoral Registration Officer (1995). He submitted that any earlier rolls cease to have legal existence under Rule 22(2). Therefore, the notification wrongly relies on historic rolls to screen voters.

He then highlighted procedural lapses, noting that Booth Level Officers (BLOs) were exercising discretion in deletions without giving receipts for forms submitted. In one booth, he claimed, 230 deletions had taken place, but only 30 of those affected were part of the 2003 roll.

Alam: The exercise is contrary to the spirit of the ROPA

Alam argued that the ECI’s notification was “neither a summary nor an intensive revision, but a new creature altogether”. This, he argued, was “against the very object” of the ROPA. He submitted that a revision of this nature must be carried out “in the prescribed manner” and for recorded reasons. The present notification, he submitted, failed to adequately explain why such a special exercise was necessary. 

Urbanisation and demographic shifts over the past two decades, he said, were insufficient grounds for this mode of revision. He added that the spirit of the Act was to “include” rather than exclude and that the framers of the law had been aware that many people would be disadvantaged due to lack of education and believed that voting would empower them.

Other arguments by petitioners 

Senior Advocate K.S. Chauhan warned that the compressed timeline left “no real time” for statutory appeals. Under the Act, voters have a right to a first appeal (30 September to 15 October) and a second appeal within 30 days thereafter, but by then, elections would already have concluded. “If the exercise had not been started only two months before, there would have been time,” he said. Chauhan also argued that excluding Aadhaar from the list of acceptable ID documents effectively amended the law without parliamentary sanction.

Advocate Fauzia Shakil added that the exercise ignored the socio-economic realities of Bihar, where literacy levels and access to documentation remained uneven. She also highlighted that people in the state could not meaningfully engage with the exercise or raise objections owing to the floods in the state. 

Advocate Rashmi Singh argued that Section 21, read with Rule 25, allows revisions only in a specific constituency or a part of it, requiring reasons for each area rather than a blanket state-wide exercise. As a constitutional body, the ECI’s reasons must meet the proportionality standard laid down in Modern Dental College v State of Madhya Pradesh (2016). In that case, the Court framed a four-prong test of proportionality which included: 

1. Whether there was a legitimate aim. 
2. Whether the means used to achieve the aim are reasonable. 
3. Whether there is a less rights-intrusive way to achieve the objective.
4.  Whether a proper balance exists between the importance of achieving the legitimate aim and the extent of rights intrusion.

With Bihar’s SIR, she submitted, the ECI had failed to comply with all four standards. 

ECI: Bihar does not live in the dark ages

Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, for the ECI, began by acknowledging the opposing submissions as “a good sign for the future.” He identified the key issues for the Court’s consideration: 

• Whether the ECI can inquire into questions of citizenship. 
• The entitlement to be registered as a voter. 
• The scope of the ECI’s powers under Article 324 and the Representation of the People Acts. 
• Whether Section 21(3) of the 1950 Act permits an SIR, and if so, whether the exercise complied with procedural rules. 
• The propriety of fixing 2003 as a cut-off date and whether the exercise was inclusionary or exclusionary.

He clarified that his defence rested on reasonableness and rationality, not an assertion of unfettered powers. He described the ECI’s authority as a “reservoir of power” under Article 324 and Sections 15, 21(2) and 21(3) of the 1950 Act.

He then submitted that while many counsel of the petitioners’ side argued on the law, some, like petitioner Yogendra Yadav, had caused unnecessary “drama”. During the hearing on Tuesday, Yadav had brought with him two persons who he claimed were declared dead by the ECI. Dwivedi claimed that there was no proper information on this, adding that the ECI welcomed information about any discrepancies. The Bench assured him that the Yadav incident was erased from their memory. 

Dwivedi then stated that it was wrong to talk about Bihar—a state rich in cultures and tradition—as if it were still living in the dark ages with no technology, while the rest of the country developed. He added that male literacy in the state was 85 percent and female literacy was almost 65 percent. Therefore, the exercise was being carried out with full transparency. 

Further, on the question of documents, he stated that close to 6.5 crore voters would not be required to submit any documents. If they were part of the 2003 roll, they were included in the SIR. Their children only need to prove a relationship with their parents. 

Bench: Publish and publicise details of deleted voters

The Bench pointed out that there was a lot of controversy surrounding the lack of information on the deletion of names. They questioned what mechanism existed for people to find out whether their names were excluded and why. Dwivedi responded that Booth Level Officers (BLOs) had this information. 

The judges then suggested that such information be made available publicly and digitally. They asked why lists of deceased, migrated, or duplicate voters could not be published online in an easily accessible, district-level format, with reasons clearly stated.  “If Poonam Devi has been omitted, Poonam Devi must be able to know that she has been deleted and why she has been deleted,” Justice Kant said. Dwivedi replied that such lists were already available on the Chief Electoral Officer’s website. But the judges said that it required an EPIC number for access. 

Justice Bagchi suggested the entire list be published openly for people to easily access their status. This would remove reliance on political actors (BLOs) and instil confidence and transparency in people. Justice Kant said that making this information public and easily accessible would change the narrative of a lack of transparency. Justice Bagchi said that the narrative aside, there was no doubt that the SIR was a departure from the rule. Therefore, it needs to be as reasoned and transparent as possible. The list must include a column for remarks where the reason for the deletion of a name (death, migration, duplication, etc) could be specified. 

The ECI agreed, stating that they would make the information available at the district levels. The Bench responded positively to this suggestion but added that it must also be available in layman’s terms and in the local language.

The Bench also told the ECI to specifically add the Aadhaar Card to its list of 11 documents which have been prescribed in the SIR notification. Further, the ECI should give wide publicity that the Aadhaar card can also be furnished by voters. 

Senior Advocates Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Vrinda Grover urged that the file be uploaded in a searchable format. Dwivedi opposed the request, citing the Supreme Court’s 2018 judgment in Kamal Nath, which held that voter lists need not be published in such a format. Justice Kant, however, remarked that there was no difficulty in making the document searchable, observing that “it has to be searchable.” 

Directions of the Bench

Following the hearing, the Bench recorded that, on its suggestion, the ECI had agreed to adopt a set of interim measures in the ongoing electoral roll revision in Bihar.

1. Online publication of excluded voters: The ECI will publish on the website of every District Electoral Officer a list of approximately sixty-five lakh voters whose names appeared in the 2025 electoral roll but are absent from the draft roll. This information will be arranged district-wise and booth-wise, and will be searchable by the voter’s EPIC number. For each voter, the reason for non-inclusion will also be disclosed. 
2. Publicity and awareness: To make the public aware of this publication, the list’s availability will be publicised in vernacular newspapers with wide circulation in Bihar, and will also be broadcast and telecast on television and radio channels. Where District Electoral Officers maintain official social media accounts, the public notice will be displayed there as well.
3. Physical display of lists: The booth-wise list of excluded voters, together with the reasons for their non-inclusion, will also be displayed on the notice board of the Block Development Office or the Panchayat office by the respective BLO, so that the public may have manual access to it. 
4. Claims process: The public notice will expressly state that any aggrieved person may submit a claim for inclusion in the electoral roll, and that such claims should be accompanied by a copy of the applicant’s Aadhaar card.
5. State-level publication: The Chief Electoral Officer of Bihar will publish the soft copy of the district-wise list of excluded voters on the CEO’s website. 

The Bench directed the ECI to complete this exercise by Tuesday, 19 August. The Court will monitor the status at 2 pm on Friday, 22 August 2025.