Bihar SIR will disenfranchise lakhs, distort voter rolls ahead of polls, ADR warns Supreme Court
Supreme Court hearing
on July 28, the
Association for Democratic Reforms
(ADR), a key petitioner challenging the
Bihar Special Intensive Revision
(SIR), has warned of the imminent exclusion of lakhs of electors ahead of the state assembly polls. ADR says this will distort the adult-to-elector ratio and vests "excessive discretionary power" in
Electoral Registration Officers
(EROs), enabling arbitrary disenfranchisement.
ADR has also argued that the Election Commission's move to seek fresh proof of citizenship from already enrolled voters violates the Supreme Court's 1995 Lal Babu Hussain ruling, which held that the onus lies only on new applicants, not existing electors.
Explore courses from Top Institutes in
Please select course:
Select a Course Category
Cybersecurity
others
Digital Marketing
Technology
Public Policy
healthcare
Degree
PGDM
Leadership
Project Management
MCA
Healthcare
Finance
Artificial Intelligence
MBA
Design Thinking
Data Analytics
Management
Operations Management
Data Science
Others
CXO
Product Management
Data Science
Skills you'll gain:
Duration:
10 Months
MIT xPRO
CERT-MIT xPRO PGC in Cybersecurity
Starts on
undefined
Get Details
RJD MP Manoj Jha
, also a petitioner, has termed the exercise unconstitutional, contending that only the Centre, not the EC, has the legal authority to determine citizenship. He warned that with the final rolls due on September 30-just weeks before elections-appeals against wrongful deletions cannot be settled before polling, depriving citizens of their right to vote.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Why seniors are rushing to get this Internet box – here's why!
Techno Mag
Learn More
Undo
Draft roll 'meaningless' without documents
Calling the SIR a "grave fraud" on Bihar's voters, ADR says inclusion in the draft rolls is meaningless without mandatory document submission. It has also held ECI has given' no valid reason' for exclusion of Aadhar, EPIC, and ration card from the list of documents.
Citing ground surveys, including from Bharat Jodo Abhiyan, ADR says fewer than half of Bihar's 18-40 age group hold the EC-specified eligibility documents. With polls expected in October-November, many voters either without documents or missing from the draft roll will have no time to secure inclusion. The impact of deletions will be more severe if clusters of migrant voters are concentrated in a few constituencies, ADR warns.
ERO 'unchecked discretion'
ADR also challenges the procedure for EROs, who must verify each elector's inclusion or exclusion from August 1. It says the June 24 SIR order lacks a defined process for scrutinising forms or verifying supporting documents, giving EROs "broad, unchecked discretion" and risking large-scale disenfranchisement.
Live Events
A single ERO is expected to handle forms for over three lakh people, making due diligence "humanly impossible". With little time to hear appeals before final roll publication, voters in the midst of appeals risk being excluded and losing their franchise.
Elector-adult ratio drops
ADR points to a sharp drop in Bihar's elector-to-adult population ratio-from 102% in 2019 to 97% in 2024-signalling under-enfranchisement. With Bihar's adult population projected at 8.18 crore in July 2025, maintaining the 97% ratio should yield a roll of at least 7.93 crore.
"Instead, SIR has slashed the figure further, bringing the total to just 7.24 crore. That leaves 94 lakh eligible adults off the draft
electoral rolls
," ADR's rejoinder says.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
12 minutes ago
- Hans India
After protests, Kerala lawmakers meet arrested nuns in jail
Chhattisgarh/Thiruvananthapuram: A delegation consisting of five lawmakers delegated by the All India Congress Committee (AICC), on Tuesday, met the two arrested nuns currently housed in a jail in Chhattisgarh. Permission was first denied to the delegation while the Kerala BJP General Secretary Anoop Antony was given permission without any problems. It was only after the intervention of former Chhattisgarh Chief Minister and veteran Congress leader Bhupesh Baghel that the AICC delegation got the permission to meet the two nuns. On Tuesday, a lower court in Chhattisgarh rejected the bail plea of the two nuns and the church is now approaching a Sessions Court on Wednesday. The nuns, Preeti Mary and Vandana Francis, posted with the Assisi Sisters of Mary Immaculate, a congregation under the Syro-Malabar Church in Alappuzha district, were working at a hospital in Agra. On August 26, the two nuns and the man, identified as Sukhman Mandavi, were accompanying three women from Chhattisgarh's Narayanpur district to Uttar Pradesh's Agra, where they had been offered jobs as kitchen helpers at a Convent. While they were waiting at the Chhattisgarh railway station, they were stopped by Bajrang Dal activists, and the police also arrived at the spot. Both the nuns and the man were taken into custody and later produced before a local court, which sent them to judicial custody. The lawmakers included Lok Sabha members Benny Behanan (Congress), N.K. Premachandran (Revolutionary Socialist Party), Francis George (Kerala Congress) and Saptagiri S. Ulaka (Congress) and Roji M. John (Congress). The brother of the arrested nun Preeti was also in the delegation. Speaking to the media soon after meeting the two distraught nuns, RSP legislator Premachandran said that they are rattled by what happened to them and continue to be in a state of shock. "It's now crystal clear that the two sisters had no malafide intentions. They are residing in two different places and they met at the railway station in Chhattisgarh. It was at the railway station that angry Bajarang Dal activists started abusing them," he added. "These Bajrang Dal activists searched the bags of the sisters and also the three women. A sum of Rs 2,000 was recovered from one woman and the Bajrang Dal activists was angrily asking if the money was given by the nuns," Premachandran said. Congress legislator Behanan said that all the narratives that were floated at the time of arrest of the nuns has fallen flat. "First they said the three young women are minors, which was proved false as they had their identity cards and also their Aadhar card. Then it was said the women was forcefully taken away, which has been denied by their parents," he added. Biju, brother of Sister Preeti, said that he came all the way from Kerala just to see her and report to our aged parents that I met her. "It was a really emotional meeting and we both broke into tears," Biju said, and added now we feel a bit relieved as we are now seeing to seek bail. What has upset the AICC delegation was despite they being lawmakers they did not get any desired respect, while a BJP leader from Kerala Anoop Antony was given the permission. "We will submit a report to the AICC on the pitiful condition of the two nuns who never did any wrong and we will again raise this issue in the Parliament on Wednesday," Behanan added. Earlier on Tuesday, as a face saving measure Kerala BJP President Rajeev Chandrasekhar cleared the air about the arrest by saying there was a miscommunication. "It's now clear that neither trafficking nor religious conversion has taken place. There was a miscommunication in the incident. We, the BJP, will stand with the nuns till they get justice. If required I myself will reach Chhattisgarh. I have had contacts with the Home Minister there," Chandrasekhar told the media in Delhi. On Wednesday, various churches in Kerala are holding a protest in the way how the constitutional rights of the nuns was violated and they were put in jail. After protests, Kerala lawmakers meet arrested nuns in jail
Indian Express
14 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Trial will never end in ‘lifetime of minister': Supreme Court blasts Stalin govt for naming 2,000 accused in Senthil Balaji's cash-for-jobs case
The Supreme Court Tuesday slammed the M K Stalin government in Tamil Nadu for allegedly trying to prolong the trial of former minister V Senthil Balaji in the cash-for-jobs case by implicating around 2,000 people as accused, calling it a complete 'fraud on the system'. 'Poor persons who were coerced by your minister or by his henchmen to pay something (Rs) 5,000, 10,000, 1 lakh, 2 lakh, you are more keen to prosecute them so that in the entire lifetime of the minister, (the) trial never comes to an end! That is your modus operandi! Completely fraud on the system… By implicating these so-called bribe givers, somebody trying to get his son employed, gave Rs 1 lakh, 2 lakh, you are making everyone an accused… 2,000 accused in 2 cases!' remarked Justice Surya Kant, presiding over a two-judge bench. The bench, also comprising Justice Joymala Bagchi, was hearing an appeal by one Y Balaji, on behalf of the victims of the alleged scam. The plea challenged the March 28, 2025, Madras High Court order rejecting petitions against the orders of the trial court directing clubbing of four supplementary chargesheets filed in connection with the fraudulent recruitment in the Chennai Metropolitan Transport Corporation. The high court, while dismissing petitions by Anti Corruption Movement against the clubbing of chargesheets, had noted that the offences formed part of the same transaction and could not be treated distinctly and that all chargesheets involved the same set of witnesses and documents. Noting that the number of accused stood at 2,202, the high court said holding separate trials would only delay the proceedings. The Supreme Court, while referring to the four chargesheets, sought to know '…who are the alleged middlemen to whom money was paid, who are the officers who acted on the minister's behest, and who were on the board of appointments or the officials who carried out these appointments?' Senior advocate A M Singhvi, who appeared for the state, said the information was in another plea which was not listed before the court Tuesday. The bench directed that those matters also be listed before it for hearing again Wednesday. Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who appeared for the petitioner, pointed out that the Supreme Court had in previous orders criticised the alleged attempts by the state to save the ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) leader. Senior advocate Amit Anand Tiwari, who also appeared for the state, said the petitioner had not approached the high court and was attempting 'forum shopping'. The allegations against Balaji concern the 2011-2016 period when he was transport minister in the then All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) government. In 2014-15, Balaji allegedly abused his official capacity and entered into a criminal conspiracy with the then managing directors of all state transport undertakings (STU) and other officers of transport corporations to obtain illegal gratification from candidates to recruit them as drivers, conductors, junior tradesmen, junior assistants, junior engineers, and assistant engineers. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) registered a money laundering case against him and arrested him in June 2023, when he was minister for electricity, prohibition and excise, in the incumbent DMK government. The Supreme Court granted bail to him on September 26, 2024, noting that the trial against him was unlikely to begin soon and that he had already spent over a year in custody. Just three days later, on September 29, 2024, he was reinstated as a Cabinet minister in the DMK government headed by Stalin. ED subsequently approached the Supreme Court seeking cancellation of his bail on the ground of influencing witnesses. Hearing the matter on April 23, the court took stern exception to his reinstatement, saying that one of the grounds on which he had sought bail was that he was no longer a minister and therefore, not in a position to influence the trial. On April 23, the top court asked Balaji to decide whether he wanted to retain his Cabinet post or safeguard his bail in the ongoing case. He then decided to retain the bail and stepped down as minister.
Time of India
25 minutes ago
- Time of India
Duke in the crosshairs: Trump's federal probe sparks a reckoning over race and academic power
US investigates Duke University over alleged Title VI violations in law journal selection. (Getty Images) The Trump administration has reignited one of the most contentious debates in American education, whether the pursuit of racial equity in universities amounts to unlawful discrimination. Duke University, long celebrated for its academic prestige, now finds itself at the centre of a federal civil rights investigation over allegations that race played a role in selecting editors for its esteemed Duke Law Journal. The investigation, announced Monday by the Department of Education, will examine whether Duke's editorial practices violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits racial discrimination in federally funded educational institutions. At the heart of the inquiry is the claim that the law journal gives preference to candidates from minority communities during its editorial selection process. 'This investigation is based on recent reporting alleging that Duke University discriminates on the basis of race, color, and/or national origin by using these factors to select law journal members,' the department said in an official statement, as reported by Reuters . by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Many Retirees Unaware Of No Deposit Car Insurance Based On Their Age OTTO Insurance Learn More Undo A broader pattern emerges The probe at Duke is not an isolated case. It comes amid a wave of federal scrutiny targeting DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) programs at top-tier universities, including Harvard, Columbia, and Brown. The Trump administration has increasingly positioned itself against institutional efforts that acknowledge race as a factor in hiring, admissions, scholarships, or editorial decisions, arguing that such policies unfairly disadvantage others. In a joint letter to Duke's leadership, Education Secretary Linda McMahon and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. urged the university to conduct an internal review and form a special panel 'with delegated authority from Duke's Board of Trustees to enable Duke and the federal government to move quickly toward a mutual resolution of Duke's alleged civil rights violations.' Duke University has not publicly responded to the allegations or the federal request for cooperation. Elite institutions in the crosshairs The intensifying pressure from Washington has put some of the nation's most prominent institutions on the defensive. According to The New York Times , Harvard University is negotiating a settlement with the federal government that could cost as much as $500 million, more than double what Columbia University agreed to pay just last week, to resolve similar civil rights inquiries. While Harvard appears willing to meet the government's financial demands, it is reportedly resisting calls to allow external oversight of its internal operations, considering such a move a breach of academic independence. Meanwhile, Brown University has already taken preemptive financial measures. Following news that the Trump administration planned to freeze over $510 million in research and student aid grants, the university secured a $500 million loan, as revealed in recent regulatory filings. DEI in the crossfire What began as isolated legal disputes has evolved into a full-scale political campaign to dismantle DEI structures in American education. The administration has threatened to cut federal funding not just over race-conscious policies, but also in response to climate-related initiatives, transgender rights, and pro-Palestinian campus protests against Israel's war in Gaza. President Donald Trump has claimed, without evidence, that DEI practices result in discrimination against white students and men. Civil rights groups have consistently rejected such assertions, arguing that DEI efforts are corrective mechanisms designed to confront longstanding inequities that have historically excluded marginalized communities from academic opportunity. Fears over academic freedom For many faculty members and civil liberties advocates, the federal campaign against DEI is seen not as a fight for fairness, but as an intrusion into academic freedom. 'This is not about fairness—this is about power,' said a spokesperson for a national civil rights coalition, speaking to Reuters on condition of anonymity. 'These federal investigations are a thinly veiled attempt to dismantle the very frameworks that have enabled underrepresented voices to gain a foothold in elite institutions.' Legal scholars warn that the outcome of these cases could have far-reaching implications, not just for the future of DEI but for how much autonomy universities will be allowed to exercise in shaping their intellectual and editorial communities. At a national crossroads The federal government's expanding push into campus policy marks a critical moment for higher education in the United States. With lawsuits, investigations, and negotiations unfolding across the Ivy League and beyond, the Duke case reflects more than a single institutional dispute; it represents a broader reckoning with how the country defines fairness, opportunity, and inclusion. As Duke braces for what could become a landmark legal and cultural confrontation, the outcome may well determine how freely American universities can pursue diversity in the years to come, or whether such efforts will now be viewed through the lens of civil rights violations. Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
