Top court seeks ECI response on Bihar voter deletion allegations

Hindustan Times

4 days ago

The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to file a reply by August 9 in response to allegations that over 6.5 million names were deleted from Bihar's draft electoral rolls without transparency during the special intensive revision (SIR) exercise. A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and N Kotiswar Singh issued the directive while hearing an application filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR). (ANI)
A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and N Kotiswar Singh issued the directive while hearing an application filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), which claimed that ECI failed to disclose who the deleted voters were and whether they were deceased or had migrated.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for NGO ADR, submitted that the draft list released on August 1 lacked crucial information. 'They have not specified who the 6.5 million omitted voters are. There is no clarity on whether these are deceased persons, those who have migrated, or others. Moreover, political parties were not given access to the lists at the block level,' Bhushan argued.
He further submitted that in many cases, names were either included or excluded from the rolls without the recommendation of Booth Level Officers (BLOs). 'More than 75% of those included have not submitted the required 11 documents. BLOs themselves filled the forms without verifying any documents,' said the lawyer, citing instances from two constituencies where nearly 12% of entries lacked BLO endorsement.
The bench observed that as per standard operating procedure, draft electoral rolls must be shared with representatives of political parties at the block level. 'This must be ensured,' remarked the court, asking ECI to clarify if and when the draft rolls were circulated to political parties prior to publication.
But the ECI counsel refuted the allegations, asserting that the draft roll was indeed shared with political parties and made publicly available. 'We are obligated to make the draft roll available. We can show that it was shared with political party representatives.'
To this, the bench responded: 'Then say so in your reply. Submit a list of the political parties to whom you provided the draft roll, so that the petitioner can verify this through the respective representatives.'
The bench then asked ECI to file a 'comprehensive reply' by Saturday. 'We will ensure that every voter likely to be affected is informed and given an opportunity to comply with requirements. Political parties as well as the local administration must be in possession of the requisite information,' the court added.
The matter is now scheduled for hearing on August 12.
On July 28, the top court refused to stay the publication of the draft rolls but reminded ECI that the SIR must promote inclusion, not mass exclusion. 'Any document on this earth can be forged. Instead of en masse exclusion, you should be going for en masse inclusion,' the bench had remarked, urging ECI to treat Aadhaar and Election Photo Identity Cards (EPIC) as carrying a 'presumption of genuineness.'
The court also emphasised at the time that ECI must act cautiously while dropping names from the voters' list and noted that forgery, if any, could be tackled on a case-by-case basis.
The petitions by ADR and others challenge ECI's June 24 notification initiating SIR under Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. The petitioners argue that ECI's demand for only 11 specified documents, such as birth or matriculation certificates, passport, domicile certificate, etc, as proof of citizenship lacks statutory basis. They further claim that this restrictive documentation requirement could disenfranchise a large number of legitimate voters, especially those from marginalised communities.
The petitioners have further questioned whether ECI is even empowered to conduct such a revision and verify citizenship, pointing out that this function constitutionally rests with the Union government.
During an earlier hearing on July 10, a different bench of the apex court framed three key legal questions for examination: whether ECI has the authority to undertake a special revision exercise like SIR; whether the manner in which SIR is being conducted is legally valid; and whether the timing of the exercise, months ahead of the Bihar Assembly elections, is appropriate. The court had at the time noted that the issues 'go to the root of the functioning of a democratic republic' and involve the citizens' fundamental right to vote.
The SIR exercise has also snowballed into a major political flashpoint. The INDIA bloc of Opposition parties has intensified protests inside Parliament, with eight parties, including Congress, Samajwadi Party, DMK, Trinamool Congress and Shiv Sena (UBT), writing to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla to demand a special discussion on the issue. In their joint letter last week, the parties expressed 'deep concern' over the timing and transparency of the revision in Bihar, calling it 'unprecedented' so close to state assembly elections, and warned that ECI's plans to replicate such revisions nationwide warrant urgent scrutiny. The government, however, has accused the Opposition of attempting to 'politicise the issue of electoral reforms.'