No law requires publishing names of 65 lakh omissions in Bihar draft rolls: ECI

Hindustan Times

3 days ago

The Election Commission of India (ECI) has told the Supreme Court that it is under no legal obligation to prepare or publish a separate list of nearly 65 lakh names not included in Bihar's draft electoral rolls, or to disclose reasons for their non-inclusion. Election Commission of India
In its latest affidavit on the contentious special intensive revision (SIR) in Bihar ahead of assembly polls later this year, the Commission emphasised that the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, only require publication of the draft roll and provision for claims and objections, and not any parallel deletion list.
ECI argued that non-inclusion in a draft roll is not the same as deletion from the electoral roll. The draft is a work-in-progress document, it said, and names may not appear for a variety of reasons, such as unreturned enumeration forms, or errors detected during house-to-house verification, but these names remain open to restoration through the claims process before final publication.
'The draft roll simply shows that the duly filled enumeration form of existing electors has been received during the enumeration phase,' stated the affidavit, adding individuals missing from the draft can file Form 6 along with the prescribed declaration to claim inclusion during the claims and objections period from August 1 to September 1, 2025.
Contesting allegations by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) that the omissions amounted to mass deletions without transparency, the poll body also accused the NGO of making 'patently false and erroneous assertions' and attempting to mislead the court.
The ECI's affidavit came in reply to allegations by ADR that 65 lakh names had been deleted from Bihar's draft electoral rolls without transparency and without disclosure of whether the deletions related to deceased persons, migrants or other categories. The petitioners alleged that political parties had not been given full access to the draft lists, and that in many cases booth level officers (BLOs) included or excluded names without proper verification of the 11 documents prescribed by ECI. On August 6, a bench led by Justice Surya Kant directed ECI to file a 'comprehensive reply' to the ADR's plea. The matter will be heard next on August 12.
In its Saturday night filing, the Commission said ADR's demand for a public list of those not in the draft rolls, along with reasons for each omission, was legally unfounded. Rules 10 and 11 of the RER, it pointed out, only require that draft rolls be made available for public inspection in the relevant areas and supplied to recognised political parties. 'As neither the law nor guidelines provide for preparation or sharing of any such list of previous electors whose enumeration form is not received… no such list can be sought by the petitioner as a matter of right,' the affidavit said.
ECI stressed that any individual omitted from the draft roll has a clear statutory route to inclusion, and that the reasons for non-inclusion, whether death, permanent migration or being untraceable, do not alter the remedy available. Providing reasons, therefore, 'serves no practical purpose' at the draft stage, it argued. Moreover, under Rule 19 of RER, the electoral registration officer (ERO) is bound to issue a hearing notice in each case where inclusion is objected to, at which stage reasons will be furnished.
Rejecting ADR's claim that voters cannot verify their status without the reasons for exclusion, ECI said every elector with an EPIC card can check the status of their enumeration form online by entering their EPIC number. This facility also provides the contact details of the relevant booth level officer (BLO) for follow-up.
The affidavit detailed steps taken before the draft rolls were published on August 1 to reach voters whose enumeration forms had not been received. Booth-level lists of such individuals were shared with recognised political parties through their district presidents and booth level agents (BLAs), meetings were held across all districts, and the lists were also acknowledged by parties, including the CPI(M-L). Further, on August 7, BLOs again convened polling station-level meetings to share these lists and seek assistance in contacting such voters. ECI said these measures were publicised in a July 27 press note, which was served on ADR during the previous hearing, making its claim of non-disclosure 'blatantly false'.
The Commission also dismissed as 'misconceived' ADR's allegation that it had departed from past practice of publishing deleted names, clarifying that the example cited by the NGO was a final electoral roll from April 2024, not a draft. 'The final roll, which will be published after the present SIR exercise… will contain all such information,' it said.
Addressing ADR's concern over a 'huge percentage of electors marked 'not recommended'' by BLOs, ECI said the recommendation mechanism was purely administrative, intended to minimise inadvertent errors, and carried no bearing on eligibility. Inputs from BLOs are 'suggestive rather than conclusive' and subject to verification by the ERO and Assistant ERO, it added. No deletion, ECI stressed, can occur without giving the voter a hearing and a reasoned order.
Accusing ADR of a 'consistent attempt to malign the ECI by building false narratives on digital, print and social media', the affidavit urged the Supreme Court to impose 'heavy costs' and initiate contempt proceedings against the NGO for trying to mislead the court.
Meanwhile, the controversy has drawn sharp political lines. On Friday, Union Home Minister Amit Shah accused the Opposition of opposing the revision because 'names of infiltrators' were being struck off. 'Infiltrators have no right to vote… The RJD and Congress are opposing SIR because these names are being deleted,' he told a rally in Sitamarhi.
The Opposition INDIA bloc has alleged that the process is designed to disenfranchise marginalised communities ahead of the Bihar polls and could set a precedent for similar purges nationwide.
As reported by HT on August 10, ECI, by a separate affidavit, had assured the Supreme Court that no eligible voter in Bihar would be struck off the rolls without prior notice, a hearing and a reasoned order. The poll body stressed that 'strict directions' had been issued to prevent wrongful deletions and highlighted a ten-point inclusion plan involving door-to-door verification, party agents, urban camps, migrant outreach, and special assistance to vulnerable voters.