The Supreme Court on Thursday reaffirmed that the Election Commission of India (ECI) is aware of its responsibility to make voter data public following the completion of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar. The Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymala Bagchi, while hearing petitions filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and others, said the ECI “knows its responsibility and after doing addition and deletion, they are bound to publish it and the matter is not closed.”
The case revolves around the large-scale revision of the electoral rolls in Bihar, an exercise that led to the removal of lakhs of names from the list. On August 1, the draft electoral roll showed that about 65 lakh names were dropped. Following concerns raised by the petitioners, the Supreme Court on August 14 directed the ECI to publish the list of these excluded voters. Later, the Court allowed the use of Aadhaar cards as valid identification for inclusion in the voters' list, after the ECI initially said it would only accept eleven other ID documents.
The ECI completed the SIR on September 30. Out of 7.89 crore voters on June 24, around 7.42 crore were retained, reducing the number of deletions from 65 lakh to about 47 lakh. The Court had declined to issue a blanket order on exclusions and inclusions, instead directing affected individuals to approach the Chief Electoral Officer of the state.
During Thursday’s hearing, Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing ADR, strongly urged the Court to direct the ECI to publish the final list, along with names added and deleted. He said, “Elections are imminent now and this Court can’t do much to change the list but at least the list and deletions should be published.” He also expressed concern that the ECI had not yet disclosed the complete list of new deletions from the final rolls and pointed out that the final roll was not available on the Commission’s website.
Responding to this, Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the ECI, said that a court direction was unnecessary since the Commission was already in the process of publishing the list. “Till tomorrow is the time, how can you say we will not put out?” he said.
Justice Surya Kant noted that the final list of each constituency would be available to political parties and polling agents, ensuring transparency. The Bench expressed confidence that the ECI would publish the relevant lists and said, “We have no doubt that they will fulfill their responsibility... they are bound to publish... we are not closing the matter.”
The petitions challenge not only the conduct of the SIR but also the legal authority of the ECI to undertake such an exercise. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Advocate Vrinda Grover, appearing for other petitioners, requested the Court to address the constitutional issue of whether the ECI possesses the power to conduct a Special Intensive Revision of this scale. The Court directed the ECI to file written submissions on this issue.
The Bench also noted that the ECI had filed an affidavit refuting allegations made earlier by ADR and activist Yogendra Yadav, who had alleged widespread irregularities in household data and claimed that the SIR resulted in “the largest-ever shrinkage of electoral rolls in the history of the country.”
The matter, however, has a long procedural history. On July 10, the Supreme Court directed the ECI to consider Aadhaar cards, ration cards, and EPICs as valid identification documents for inclusion in the voter list. Later, on July 28, it allowed the ECI to go ahead with publishing the draft rolls but asked it to consider Aadhaar as an acceptable form of ID. On August 6, ADR complained that the ECI had not disclosed details of the 65 lakh omitted voters, prompting the Court’s August 14 direction to make this information public.
On August 22, the Court directed the ECI to allow excluded voters to submit applications for inclusion through online mode using Aadhaar. Then, on September 8, the Court clarified that Aadhaar would be treated as a “12th document” for voter identification purposes, though it would not serve as proof of citizenship.
In an earlier hearing on October 7, the Bench had noted confusion about whether the voters added in the final list were those previously deleted from the draft or entirely new entrants. The petitioners had also requested publication of the names of 3.66 lakh voters deleted from the final list and 21 lakh newly added voters. The Court had asked the ECI to provide clarification on this aspect.
During the latest proceedings, Dwivedi informed the Court that for the first phase of the Bihar Assembly elections, the nomination deadline was October 17, and for the second phase, it was October 20, which meant the rolls would be frozen accordingly. He also stated that no appeals had been received against deletions, even though the Court had earlier directed that free legal aid be provided to affected voters.
Justice Kant observed that as a responsible constitutional authority, the ECI was expected to address typographical or procedural errors in the list and ensure remedial measures were taken. The Court reiterated its confidence in the ECI’s accountability and indicated that it would review the matter once the data is published.
The Supreme Court has scheduled the next hearing for November 4, a few days before Bihar goes to polls on November 6 and 11 in two phases. |
